Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Engagements

   Q8. Admiral Lord West was head of the Royal Navy, Chief of Defence Intelligence and a Labour Security Minister, and he sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee. When he writes in the national press denouncing what he calls the“disgraceful decision to hand over ownership of the Chagos archipelago”,adding that he does “not accept that the move is ‘absolutely vital for our defence and intelligence’, as the Prime Minister claims”,should we rely on his professional judgment or not?

   Hansard source
2. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

   Hospitality Sector

   The Minister is an entirely charming chap and a great entertainer—I worry that his Equity card might be getting out of date. He praises the changes that have been made to the employment conditions of bar staff, for example, but does he really think that it is a good idea to have them policing the comments of people who use public houses, when it takes as many as five members of the constabulary to arrest a comedian over inappropriate tweets?

   Hansard source
3. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Engagements

   Q14. Mr Speaker, I know you will agree that flags and banners, in bringing national pride, nourish individuals’ sense of worth and nurture our shared sense of belonging. Will the Prime Minister take steps to ensure that across every part of our kingdom, alongside the crosses of St George in England, St Patrick in Ireland, St Andrew in Scotland and the red dragon in Wales, our flag is flown on every Government and public building—hospitals, schools, police stations and railway stations—for every Briton deserves the chance to see a forest of flagpoles and the flutter of the Union Jack?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

   Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

   I congratulate my hon. Friend not just on securing this debate, but on all the work he has done on this subject. He knows that he and I and our right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and others have been raising it for many years now. He also knows that the Secretary of State has said he wants time to think about the appropriate solution. That is reasonable, but he has had plenty of time to think about it now, has he not? Are not our constituents who are affected now entitled to know what the Government have decided to do, not just in the interests of those affected but, as my hon. Friend said, in the interests of the effectiveness of Government policy on vaccination?

   Hansard source
5. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   Property Taxes

   Before I get into my speech, I genuinely welcome the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), to the Treasury Bench and to his position in the Treasury. I give the House due notice that I do not intend to take interventions; the hon. Gentleman will have a tough enough job defending the indefensible as it is, and I do not want to curtail his time any more than I strictly have to. The Labour party loves tax, and that has been on display in the Chamber this afternoon. When given the opportunity, Labour has been very critical of us. It is only fair to say that in government we did put up taxes more than we would have wanted. However, I do not remember Labour Members criticising our expenditure when we were supporting businesses and individuals through furlough; I do not remember them criticising our decisions to support people with their fuel bills in response to Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. Labour likes the spending when it comes. A number of Government Members stood up and criticised us for putting up taxes—a bold move, bearing in mind that that is exactly what they are going to do later on this year. If I am wrong in my estimation, if I have been unfair, or if I have mis-categorised the heart and soul of those on the Government Benches, I will break the rule that I made just a moment ago and take an intervention from any Government Member who is willing to stand up and say that they want to see taxes coming down—I thought not.

   Hansard source
6. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   Property Taxes

   No, I will not give way. The hon. Member had his chance. This is the point: the Government love putting up taxes. We in the Conservative party put up taxes when we had to; this Government put up taxes at every chance they get. And the reason they put up taxes whenever they get the chance to do so is that they think taxes are not a necessary evil, but a good in and of itself. That is at the heart of the problem. The fact that gilt markets, bond markets, businesses and individuals know in their heart of hearts that taxes will go up under this Government has produced the stagnation and the stifling that Labour Members are criticising. I was about to say that we have had a number of good contributions from both sides of the House, but that is being generous. The simple fact of the matter is that a key indicator of confidence in a Government is the cost of borrowing, and, currently, that is at a multi-decade high. As we have said, it has not been higher this century; it is trending in the wrong direction. The Bank of England, when setting interest rates, made it clear that it is concerned about the trajectory—specifically the trajectory on property taxes. Those on the Treasury Bench say that they do not want to speculate on what might be in the Budget later this year. They did not want this House to investigate what they claim to be speculation. They probably should not have spent so much time briefing the media over the summer. They cannot have it both ways. We are asking legitimate questions of the Government, because the markets and the country are worried about what is happening and we want to allay their fears.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

   Property Taxes

   No, I will not give way. Let me just say this: if we are to address the slowing of the housing market, we should make sure—[Interruption.] I say “we”, but Labour is in government now and it should therefore make sure that it does nothing to stagnate the market further. Speculation is rife that there will be a £14,000 tax bill on average for UK households, a £23,000 tax bill for those in the south-east, and potentially an average tax bill of £33,000 for property transactions. That is the Government’s fault. They have the opportunity to put that speculation to bed and they choose not to do so. Despite the fact that they are now in government, they do not seem to have learned the lesson that when they speak—whether it be on or off the record—markets move. That is why speculation among those on the Government Benches is so damaging and so dangerous. They are causing economic problems because of their kite flying. We have given them an opportunity to put one of those pieces of speculation to bed and they have failed to do so. In that failure, the mask has slipped—they want to put up taxes. They love putting up taxes and they are going to put up taxes.

   Hansard source
8. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Hospitality Sector

   Will the Minister give way?

   Hansard source
9. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Edward Leigh

   Hospitality Sector

   This is all good, amusing, knockabout stuff—nothing wrong with that—but will the Minister say a few words of comfort to the small family businesses that are closing all over the country and about whether, as the Minister with responsibility for hospitality, he is making representations to the Chancellor to relieve some of those small businesses from such taxes in the Budget?

   Hansard source
10. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

    Topical Questions

    T3. Why has the Minister chosen to champion the rights of the residents of the Bell hotel over those of the local community?

    Hansard source
11. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for people harmed following covid-19 vaccinations. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. This is a hot topic. The Secretary of State told my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in June that it was on still on the boil. We hope today to find out a bit more about what the Government will do in response to the representations that have been made. I have been campaigning on this issue since the summer of 2021, when it first became apparent that some people had suffered serious adverse reactions—in a few cases fatal ones—as a result of having taken vaccines against covid-19. That summer, over four years ago, I presented a petition calling from reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme, to “maintain vaccine confidence and provide urgent support for those injured/bereaved through covid-19 vaccinations”. The complacent Government at the time responded: “Once more is known about the possible link between the vaccine and potential side effects, it will be considered whether a wider review of the VDPS is needed”. Is it not regrettable that four years on we are in exactly the same position? The new Government’s line is, “We are not sure whether we’re going to review the VDPS and, if we do, how we’re going to review it and in what respects.” What has happened since the summer of 2021? On 10 September 2021, in speaking to my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, I expressed my concerns about the victims of these vaccines. At that stage, there had been only 154 applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme. Four years later, as of June 2025, the number of claims had risen to 21,444. This is a big and serious issue, yet the Government continue to be in denial about the validity of causal links between covid vaccines and injury or death. Now, in the face of evidence, the Government have had to change their tune, not least because, as of May 2025, 224 awards of £120,000 had been paid in respect of people who had been proved to have suffered death or serious injury as a result of having the vaccines. It is no longer open to the Government to deny that causality, but it seems that they are still intent on playing hard to get for those people who are still seeking compensation or redress for what they have suffered. This fits closely with the whole issue of vaccine confidence. We have heard recently about the declining take-up of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines and other childhood vaccines; our levels of take-up are now well below those recommended by the World Health Organisation. The vaccine damage payment scheme was introduced to give confidence to people who did the right thing in public health terms: they got themselves vaccinated, and they knew that if something went wrong, the Government would come in and support them. That now is not happening, or at least it is not happening in sufficiently large quantities. As a result, the word on the street is that if someone takes a vaccine—if they take that risk for the sake of public health—and something goes wrong, they will probably have to pay the consequences themselves, and the Government will not help. It is now universally accepted that covid-19 vaccines were not absolutely “safe and effective”, as was claimed at the time. For a few people, the vaccines have been a disaster. The charity UKCVFamily continues to campaign fearlessly for those victims; later this month, it will host in London a two-day seminar with leading lawyers and medical practitioners to consider some of these issues. In January, UKCV and others gave evidence on module 4 of the covid-19 inquiry, arguing for reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. The hope at the time was that there would be an interim ruling or report, before this point, basically asking the Government to get to grips with reviewing the scheme because of the injustice that was being caused. So far, nothing seems to have happened about producing an interim report in relation to module 4. The recognition that the reluctance of Government to face up to the facts about covid-19 vaccines is widespread globally led to the publication of “Canary In a Covid World”, a collection of essays from 34 contributors across different countries. I was privileged to be one of them. Another contributor and co-author was Dr Peter McCullough, whose latest book, “Vaccines: Mythology, Ideology, and Reality”, was published in July and for a time was in the New York Times bestseller list. The importance of this issue for tens of thousands of people cannot be overstated, yet the Government continue to vacillate.

    Hansard source
12. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I have before me the answer that he received from the Secretary of State when he raised the matter at Health questions on 17 June: “I reassure the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the constituents of his I have met and other campaigners that I am having discussions with the Cabinet Office about how we deal with that and other issues that have been raised this morning…He knows the complexities involved, and I have been grateful for his advice as a former Attorney General. I do not have specific progress to report now, but I reassure him and campaigners that this issue has not gone off the boil and we are working to find a resolution.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 159.] That was almost three months ago, so what has happened in the interim? I hope that the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in her place, will be able to deliver a response to the questions as to what review is being carried out, which aspects of the scheme are being reviewed, when evidence will be invited, if that is to happen, and what the timescale is for all this, because at the moment people are in the dark, as my right hon. and learned Friend said.

    Hansard source
13. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister listened to her and will have direct answers to the questions that she raised. Having spent so much time badgering my right hon. Friend, when she was a Minister in the Cabinet Office, to get something done on this issue, I perhaps need to take the opportunity to say this. I think in the end I reached the conclusion that she had been badly let down by the officials in her Department. It was unfinished business at the time of the general election, and if the current Secretary of State is in discussion with the Cabinet Office, then another 15 months have gone by. Having regard to the work that was done before, I would hope that we are getting close to having answers.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    I agree absolutely. If someone has suffered serious adverse effects from a covid-19 vaccine, it is not much consolation to them, their loved ones or those whose confidence we are trying to build to be told that because they are only 30% disabled they are not entitled to a penny. Someone who is 59% disabled is not entitled to anything, even if that disability was caused by the vaccine. To put all this in context, the VDPS was set up in 1979 to boost confidence for those receiving vaccines. Between 1979 and 31 March 2025, the total number of non-covid vaccine claims was 958. As of 31 March, 331 were still live, 88 of which had been waiting more than 12 months, and only nine had been successful. That is hardly a confidence-building measure, but as I mentioned, as of the end of June, there were more than 22,000—more than 22 times as many—claims for damage caused by covid-19 vaccines. It is hardly surprising that there has been a decline in vaccine confidence. That is why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) said, we need some urgency. When I ask questions about this, I keep getting fobbed off with unsatisfactory answers. Mostly recently, on 7 July, a Minister wrote in answer to my question: “I am not in a position to comment on timelines for the consideration of options for reform or recommendations for change.” Are those options not being considered now? When are they going to be brought forward? The answer continued: “Ministers continue to consider options covering both potential reforms…and the situation of those who have suffered harm.” But they will not tell us the timescale. What are we to do? What are the punters meant to do about this? We are still waiting for the report from the inquiry, in particular on module 4, but the evidence given to the inquiry was compelling. In conclusion, I will quote briefly from the evidence that was given in the introductory statements before Baroness Heather Hallett: “During the early months of the vaccine rollout, those who experienced adverse reactions found it nearly impossible to access information about vaccine injuries in the mainstream media. This lack of coverage contributed to feelings of fear, isolation, and a heightened likelihood of being disbelieved. Adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines were largely absent from mainstream media discussions. When they were eventually covered, the stories were often framed with an emphasis on the rarity of such reactions, the safety of the vaccine, and the millions of lives it had saved. Members of the Covid Vaccine Adverse Reaction and Bereaved Groups who participated in interviews with mainstream media often had to agree to censor themselves, or had their words altered during editing.” We now know that they were right. Their concerns that these injuries and bereavements had been caused by the vaccines were correct, although the Government at the time were in denial. That has added to the trauma of the victims and their families. I hope that the Government, which I always hope will be sympathetic to those in need and in plight, will now wake up and put a proverbial under the UK Government authorities that are trying to forestall any action. One can see the way in which the previous Government’s Ministers were disregarded on this issue and how the NHS carries on doing its own thing and being in denial. I hope that the Minister can tell us the timescales for this, exactly what is being discussed and what is not, and when we will be able to report something positive to those of our constituents who continue to suffer.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    The Minister says she cannot give us an exact timeline. Could she give us an approximate time? Is this going to be finished before the end of this year, for example? That is not an exact timeline, but it would be an indicative timeline. And when she talks about various options, can she not explain which of those options are being considered or which ones are not being considered? For example, is increasing the £120,000 payout being considered? Is reducing the disability threshold from 60% being considered? Is disapplying the three-year limitation period for the bringing of civil claims being considered? Please can we have a yes or no to those things? We are not asking for the decisions on those, but we are asking whether they are being considered or not.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Christopher Chope

    Covid-19 Vaccination Harm

    Obviously, the Minister has a brief that has been given to her by officials on behalf of the Minister with responsibility for public health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), who is not able to be here. Can this Minister give me some assurance that I, together with my colleagues who have participated in this debate, will be able to meet the relevant Minister, so that we can go over some of this stuff? I realise that this Minister does not have the discretion to be able to respond to this debate, but the public health Minister would have that discretion, so can she guarantee that we can fix up a meeting, please?

    Hansard source
17. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Property Taxes

    This Government were elected on a manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion. That was to be paid for through £7.3 billion of extra taxes and £3.5 billion of extra borrowing, all of which was set out in the Labour manifesto. It was a modest plan with a prudent margin—exactly the sort of plan one might expect a party in opposition to put forward to show that it can be trusted to run the public finances. Labour Members might reflect on the fact that had they implemented the plan, the British economy would be in better condition than at present. In its first Budget, Labour increased public expenditure not by £9.5 billion, but by £70 billion. How those on the Labour Benches cheered with delight at the thought of all the extra spending: pay rises for train drivers, with no conditions; pay rises for junior doctors, with no strings; money for Great British Energy; and more money for the British Business Bank—all so the Government can invest in projects that the private sector does not think will make a return. We all know how this story ends: Labour will use all the business acumen that the Cabinet has at its disposal to create a modern version of British Leyland. It is what Labour does best: spending other people’s money, and borrowing yet more money that other people’s children can repay. But all this extra spending and borrowing comes at a price, and the Government are now paying 5.7% interest to borrow money for 30 years. That is the highest level since 1998, and this surge in borrowing costs reflects the market’s lack of confidence in the Chancellor’s ability to manage Britain’s finances.

    Hansard source
18. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Property Taxes

    I do not accept that at all. This surge is entirely due to the Chancellor losing control of public expenditure, and the increased cost of servicing our national debt adds further pressure on the British taxpayer. Having presented her Budget, the Chancellor said: “We’re not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing.” The problem is that no one believes her. The markets do not believe her, and Labour Back Benchers certainly do not believe her. They now know that they only have to threaten to rebel on any item of public expenditure and the Chancellor will cave. We saw that on the welfare reform Bill, which was brought forward to save a modest £4.5 billion. What happened? The first whiff of a rebellion, and the Bill was gutted, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the cost. In that context, over the summer we saw briefings from the Treasury testing the water on a whole series of potential tax rises: higher rates of council tax, a land value tax, capital gains tax on family homes, lowering the thresholds for inheritance tax and an annual property levy on the family home. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is being so careful about which of her many homes is her primary residence. The Chancellor is clearly desperate to raise more money. It is a cruel irony, is it not, that having invented a £22 billion black hole to justify her taxing and spending, the Chancellor now finds herself facing a black hole entirely of her own making? It is her jobs tax and other tax rises that have caused the economy to slow and unemployment to rise. Her increase in public expenditure has fuelled inflation, which has led to higher wage demands and increased benefit costs.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Property Taxes

    I agree. It is the threat of higher taxes that is causing the economy to stall. Rather than reducing the size of the state so that it is affordable, the Government give every indication of wanting it to grow further. The fundamental reason that this Government need to raise taxes is that they are incapable of controlling the fiscal incompetence of their own Back Benchers. At their core, Labour MPs genuinely believe that the state can spend our constituents’ money better than they can spend it themselves. They do not believe in thrift or self-reliance, and they see no limit on the size of the state. Opposition Members know that it is businessmen and businesswomen across Britain who create wealth and growth. Success is the result of hard work, taking risks, satisfying customers and employing neighbours. The Government should provide the environment for those businesses to thrive, rather than threatening every part of the economy with higher taxes.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Property Taxes

    Does my hon. Friend accept that speculation about all those new additional taxes causes more uncertainty, which itself causes the economy to slow further?

    Hansard source
21. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sarah Bool

    Diabetes in Sport

    As a type 1 diabetic myself, I completely agree with what the hon. Member says. Exercise is an excellent way of moderating blood sugar levels, but it can also bring stresses and strains, as diabetics do worry about hypoglycaemia, which I am sure he will come to. I am a big fan of anything we can do to support people to take up sport, so I congratulate him on securing this debate.

    Hansard source
22. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Hospitality Sector

    UKHospitality says: “At a time when the country needs jobs, the Government should be encouraging hospitality to grow and create jobs, not tax them out of existence.” Is it right or wrong?

    Hansard source
23. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Hospitality Sector

    I will speak about some of the hospitality businesses in my constituency, but I say to the hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) that that was an interesting speech; I do not think much of it was based in reality, however, and I am more than happy to explain. The Employment Rights Bill will cost £5 billion by the Government’s own assessment. The businesses that will bear the costs of that will then have to make cost-cutting measures, and it is usually young people—I trust her that it might be ethnic minorities who are at the vanguard—who are at risk. They are the ones who will suffer and lose their jobs, because those businesses still have to make a profit. I broaden my point out to the Government Benches. I listened to the opening speech by the Minister. It was sometimes an entertaining speech, especially when he took my intervention, but sitting here, I thought, “There is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to make a profit and how important that is to businesses.” That is literally the reason people go into business: to make a profit and generate cash. The rise in national insurance contributions—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Bill, which will cost £5 billion, are costs imposed by the Labour Government. They made a choice to impose that on businesses. Hospitality businesses suffering at the hands of the Labour Government are having to make tough choices, and that means seasonal workers will not be employed, or not as many of them will be. We are already seeing that. When I quoted the chair of UKHospitality to the Minister, he denied that and said it was not happening, but the stats say something different. Over half of the jobs lost since the Budget have been lost as a result of Labour’s Budget. I have been speaking to businesses since then, including Visit Knowle, Eric Lyons and the Barn at Berryfields—these are beautiful businesses that we have. We have the National Exhibition Centre, which is a great importer of tourism and which the Minister spoke about, backed by Birmingham airport. We have the Greenwood pub, Nailcote Hall, Three Trees community centre—I could go on and on. There are huge numbers of hospitality businesses, but they are all suffering the cost of the jobs tax, which disproportionally affects them. It means that those businesses are not investing because they are having to save that money to pay the Chancellor.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Saqib Bhatti

    Hospitality Sector

    I have a rude awakening for the hon. Member, and it is a broader point about the debate. Having listened to Government Members, and I suggest that they turn on the news and start looking at what is happening to the bond market, because we are seeing record interest rates when the Government have to borrow. Last year, all these Government Members backed the Chancellor’s fictitious black hole; now she has a real black hole that she created, which she will have to deal with. I do not know what they think will happen at the Budget, but it will either be the cuts that they opposed in the welfare Bill and other cuts that they find unpalatable, or it will be further taxes raised on working people, who they purport to defend and support. When those taxes are imposed on businesses, it will hurt either consumer sentiment or the business themselves. They will then have to make further job cuts to survive. That is the reality; everything has a consequence. What Labour Members fail to understand is that it is absolutely essential—particularly because they talk about supporting such businesses—that they lobby the Chancellor to get a grip on the situation, instead of allowing it to balloon completely out of control as a result of the measures they backed last October. The consequences of that have been tens of thousands of job losses and thousands of businesses going under. I am deeply worried for my constituents. As much as I found the Minister’s speech interesting and sometimes entertaining, I thought that it was quite disrespectful to the hospitality sector, which is very worried. The chair of the biggest representative body of the hospitality sector is saying that there is a problem, but she is being ignored or told that there is no problem. Hospitality businesses in the constituencies of Labour MPs will be knocking on their doors and asking for answers. I ask for a degree of humility because the reckoning is coming—respected economists and think-tanks are saying it—as a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions. I restate my request for a bit of humility and understanding of what the hospitality sector is going through.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Property Taxes

    That is exactly the problem. Many businesses in my constituency—and, dare I say it, in others—are saying to us as Members of Parliament that they want to but dare not invest in growing their businesses, because they do not know what increases in taxes are coming down the line from this Chancellor. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that businesses are reluctant to invest right now in the projects they want to deliver for the growth of their own enterprises?

    Hansard source
26. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Property Taxes

    Here we are, well over a year into this new Administration, this new Labour Government, and it is clear that they have fundamentally mismanaged the economy in their first year in office. What do we see? Borrowing costs up, growth flatlining, taxes rising and businesses being absolutely hammered. To fix this mess to the tune of £50 billion—who knows what it might be—Labour is now threatening to hike taxes on anyone they have not already squeezed into submission. It is clear that the Labour Government are coming after people’s property. It was not enough for them to legislate to compulsorily purchase people’s gardens and homes by giving local authorities and Natural England more power through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and to acquire them not at market value, but at a disregarded value relating to agricultural property value if they are a farm. If the Government do not manage to grab it, they certainly intend to tax it. As if that tax on people’s homes or gardens was not bad enough, Labour is also coming after people’s businesses. Through the changes to inheritance tax relief, agricultural property relief and business property relief, the Government have destroyed one of the sole business environments that our communities and businesses rely on—the ability to pass an asset on to the next generation and for them to earn an income from it. Across my constituency, soft furniture makers such as Fibreline, brewers, farmers, hotels and those involved in the hospitality sector have all actively taken the decision to slow the amount of investment they are willing to put in to grow their own businesses. Why? Because of the threats coming out of the Labour Government’s previous Budget in October last year and the Budget coming down the line.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Property Taxes

    My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Many of our family businesses, whether in the hospitality sector or in other sectors, are actively withholding a level of investment in their businesses which they want to grow and thrive. I have spoken to many farming businesses and many family businesses in my constituency who have worked out what their BPR or their APR liability is likely to be over a 10-year plan, and are therefore holding the level of investment back, because they may have to give it to the Chancellor and not invest it for the future growth of their business. That is not good for the health of the communities and businesses we represent. Then there is council tax, with the looming threat of council tax revaluations potentially coming down the line, raising the council tax liability on many constituents, with properties potentially moving into higher tax bands. Bradford residents, who include those in Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth valley, have already had our council tax raised by 10%. This threat is being added by the Labour Government when council tax is increasing. And then there is the cut to business rates relief, which is impacting many of our businesses. With the threat of a revaluation process coming down the line, I want to raise the case of the Valuation Office Agency. Just this morning, I spoke to the Rock family, who have developed Providence Park in Keighley, with a huge amount of public funding going into the project. Despite the project completing its construction phase in April, they are now being told that despite an application being submitted, the valuation office is not even progressing with providing the business rate liability. It will therefore be more difficult for the Rock family to let those business premises. What is the Minister doing right now to put pressure on the valuation office to get a grip, pull its finger out and get those rates looked at, not just for Providence Park, but for the many businesses up and down the country that are struggling to get understanding from the valuation office? This debate is about property taxes. We know that the Government have indicated that they are going to come for property owners in the Budget that is coming down the line—they indicated it in the previous Budget through the changes they made to inheritance tax. The Government must change course for the health and the good of the economic prosperity of our country.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Property Taxes

    I just want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point about free school meals, because these meals are not free. I spoke with a school in my constituency just last week that has been mandated to provide these so-called free school meals. However, the meals are having to come out of the school’s own budget. Can we change the narrative associated with the rhetoric that this Labour Government are putting out?

    Hansard source
29. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Hospitality Sector

    Hospitality is under a huge strain. Pubs particularly are really struggling across the country, and indeed in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. Nationally, pub closures are estimated to be running at one establishment a day, thanks to this Labour Government’s hike in employers’ national insurance, the hike in the minimum wage and the looming threat of this Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill. The number of closures is only climbing, and these punitive measures are pushing our pubs to the brink. That is coupled with disposable income tightening for families, including families who may want to support our pubs. In the Bradford district, council tax has been raised by 10%. That impacts all my constituents who want to spend money at their pubs but cannot because they have to tighten their belt. The Dickie Bird in Long Lee and many other pubs are coming under a huge amount of strain as their overheads increase; they are, dare I say it, looking at closure. I met the owners of the Dickie Bird recently, and they expressed to me how much financial strain this Labour Government’s policies have put on them; that has ultimately led to them having to make the decision to close.

    Hansard source
30. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Hospitality Sector

    As all of us know, I have been campaigning tirelessly to secure the funding to rebuild Airedale hospital, and it was finally announced in 2023, but it was very disappointing to many of my constituents when the completion date for the rebuild was pushed back by this Labour Government from 2030 to 2035. My constituents and others from surrounding constituencies will now have to wait much longer for the rebuild to be completed because of the decisions made by this Labour Government. The Airedale Heifer, the Busfeild Arms, the Brown Cow and the Black Hat are all fantastic pubs in my constituency, and I encourage everyone to go along and buy a pint of Timothy Taylor’s—one of the finest breweries in this country. A pint of Landlord will go down very well. The Bridgehouse brewery in Keighley also produces fantastic ales. All these establishments want to be supported, but they are expressing to me the challenge of their increased overheads, resulting from this Labour Government, and particularly from the employers’ national insurance increase. The Turkey Inn in Goose Eye is also experiencing the same challenges. These punitive measures are directly impacting communities, as I have said. They hurt young people who want to start out in the workplace. The Government have rightly made a great deal of the importance of getting young people into work, but the Employment Rights Bill, the increase in employers’ national insurance and the hike in the minimum wage are making it much more difficult for the hospitality sector to recruit young people and provide opportunities for them to thrive, get work experience and earn an income. That is impacting many constituencies, not least those across the Keighley and Ilkley area, which I represent.

    Hansard source
31. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Hospitality Sector

    There are over 300 hospitality businesses in South West Devon, and even though that may not be the highest number in a single constituency, considering the areas of countryside in mine, where the only residents are cattle and sheep, it is a hefty number. There are 316 venues, including the Woolwell Centre, the Who’d Have Thought It, the Black Cat Surf Club and the Plympton Conservative Club, the Exchange in Ivybridge, Nelli’s in Yealmpton, School House at Mothecombe, the Odd Wheel in Wembury and Kingfisher Fish and Chips. The list goes on. Hospitality in South West Devon means more than 2,000 jobs, a turnover of £91.7 million and an economic value to the local economy of £50 million. Hospitality plays a crucial role in our local community tourism offer—in our area, there is everything from coast to moors to explore. Neighbouring constituencies have even more jobs and economic value at risk under this Labour Government. That is why a group of local businesses have taken matters into their own hands and formed a campaign to save hospitality across Plymouth and South West Devon. I am proud to support it. The impact of increased employer national insurance contributions; of halving business rate relief; of bringing forward employment rights that nobble employers and add undue cost and pressure; and of the minimum wage increase, even for the youngest employees, is hitting so hard that many businesses fear for the future. The sector is reeling. Businesses are simply not employing new staff, and they are less inclined to employ young people and students.

    Hansard source
32. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

    Hospitality Sector

    I will come on to that exact point in my remaining few minutes, but absolutely, they are a crucial part of our community. Why does that all matter? As hospitality businesses across the country bring financial and social value to our communities, they are critical to a thriving tourism sector. They are also a key part of our everyday life, whether it is having the treat of an ice cream on the beach during a summer holiday, using a local memory café with a loved one, chatting over a pint to ease loneliness, or bringing family together for a meal that someone else has cooked, in order to mark a special occasion. However, the increased business costs imposed by this Labour Government mean that there are increased costs to the consumers who want to make the most of those opportunities. It means that fewer people go out; that is what I am hearing from constituents. Then those businesses face closure, which impacts the local economy. It is a vicious cycle and, sadly, the Labour party seems completely oblivious to it. The equation is simple, and I am saddened and disappointed to see the Labour party stick its head in the sand, completely determined to ignore the issue. If we Conservative Members do not speak up, there will not be a hospitality sector in this country. As I have said, the Labour party keeps boasting about economic growth in hospitality, but I am not sure that we will see that in my constituency, because all the hospitality businesses feel massively under threat.

    Hansard source
33. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Support for Trans People

    The Equality and Human Rights Commission has confirmed that at least 19 public bodies, including organisations across the policing, education and health sectors, are misrepresenting the law on single-sex spaces. That is a breach of the Equality Act 2010, as confirmed by the recent Supreme Court ruling. Has the Minister been told which bodies they are, and how can women and girls have any confidence in them if they are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law?

    Hansard source
34. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of drones in defence. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank colleagues for enabling me to secure this debate. Contrary to what some people may think, drones are not a new tool. The UK first began testing unmanned aerial vehicles for training during the first world war and later developed them in the 1930s for anti-aircraft gunnery target practice. Much like the noble tank owes its name to Britain, the drone does too: the Hatfield-built Queen Bee radio-controlled aircraft is thought to have inspired the term “drone”. As technology has improved and drones have become more sophisticated, their military use has expanded over the decades to include reconnaissance, surveillance and targeted strikes. From the Queen Bee to bomb disposal vehicles to today’s Reapers, the UK armed forces have long used drones, but while we were an early pioneer, we now risk falling behind. The slow evolution of drones is now fast revolutionising warfare. Their mass use has transformed combat in Ukraine, on the land, in the air and at sea, with cheap kamikaze drones causing immense damage. Staggeringly, up to 80% of Russian and Ukrainian casualties are due to drones. They have transformed combat on the frontline. Drones threaten infantrymen, fortified positions and vehicles up to 9 miles from contact lines. Moving positions and supplies has become a deadly task.

    Hansard source
35. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    It is right that we continue to support Ukraine. Our support of Ukraine is keeping us safe in the west, and we need to redouble our efforts to make sure the brave soldiers and people of Ukraine are well defended. Drones are now an important part of supply chains and logistics, with Ukraine using ground drones to move ammunition and other supplies to the frontline. Operation Spiderweb saw Ukraine smuggle 117 cheap first-person-view drones to successfully strike a Russian airfield, disabling a third of Russia’s strategic bombers. That is drones worth a couple of hundred dollars inflicting an estimated $7 billion of damage. Sea drones have changed the balance of power in the Black sea. A third of Russia’s fleet was damaged or destroyed by relatively low-cost sea drones packed with explosives ramming ships. While Russia’s navy has adapted to make these attacks harder, sea drones carrying missiles or other drones are still causing immense damage—a $300,000 sea drone can destroy fighter jets worth $50 billion. Drones are transforming warfare and levelling the playing field in asymmetric fights, but the change can be seen beyond Ukraine. Israel weakened Iran’s attacks on its territory by covertly transporting drones in suitcases and trucks to destroy Iranian air defences and missiles. Houthi rebels used drones to target HMS Diamond, requiring the ship to use its expensive missiles to stop a relatively cheap attack. Even drug cartels in Mexico are using cheap drones to launch targeted strikes against security services. Terrorist groups are also adapting commercially available drones for reconnaissance and filming propaganda, and they will undoubtedly be used in future attacks. The pace of change is unbelievably fast, but the direction is clear: drone warfare is the future, and Britian must be the leader in the development, testing and mass deployment of drones. That means three things. First, we must develop an ecosystem of private enterprises that can innovate, test and build drone models—big and small, sophisticated and simple—at a larger scale. Ukraine is armed with many UK-made drones. We have supplied some 70,000 already and have a target of 100,000 by the end of the year, but that pales in comparison with the numbers required for drone warfare. Ukraine aims to produce 4.5 million this year. It would take relatively little money to kick-start a collection of competing companies, capable of innovating to keep up with battlefield changes, to build inexpensive or sophisticated drones. We must also help commercial drone enterprises to thrive. Although they were not initially intended to, those machines can have military purposes and can provide the industrial-scale drone warfare that we require. It is disappointing and frankly unacceptable that, since the general election, the Government have purchased only three drones for the UK armed forces. Secondly, if the UK procures many new drones, we will be able to start training our forces and learning the lessons from Ukraine. Although our brave service personnel use drones for many tasks, they are not as widely utilised as modern warfare demands.

    Hansard source
36. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    This is a good point at which to mention the armed forces parliamentary scheme, of which colleagues from across the House are part. That great enterprise enables us to better understand the pressures and the reality that our armed forces personnel face. My hon. Friend is right that we have visited sites where we have seen how drones can be used and how effective they can be for deployment on the battlefield. That drives my request to the Minister to look at how we can procure more drones. We are steadfast in our support for Ukraine, where we have made the military links we need to learn how drones can make our British forces even more lethal. They can carry out unmanned assaults and provide the support that our personnel need. Finally, and in equal measure, we need to look at how the armed forces can counter drones—what we can do to fight them off. HMS Diamond is a particular case in point, as it successfully destroyed nine Houthi drones, but at huge expense. We have seen the damage that drones have inflicted on prestigious targets—Russian jets, ships and bombers—so we clearly need to defend ourselves from them. As a nation, we cannot afford to let cheaply purchased drones with a grenade attached wreck a multimillion-pound piece of equipment. We are already developing solutions such as radio frequency directed energy weapons, capable of neutralising swarms of drones, but as we look to ramp up defence spending in a more dangerous world, the threat posed by cheap drones must be answered. Drones will not make infantry, artillery, ships or aircraft obsolete; they are a new tool that will help to transform warfare. They must be an integral part of our efforts to strengthen the UK’s armed forces and face down the threats our country now faces.

    Hansard source
37. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    I was hoping to attend the debate yesterday—of course, Biggin Hill in my constituency played a huge part in the RAF’s incredible efforts during the second world war and the battle of Britain—but sadly I was in the main Chamber in a different debate. Through those big conflicts at the beginning of the last century, we saw huge innovation and people learning, as the cliché goes, not to fight the previous conflict. We will always have to adapt and change. I know, especially through the armed forces personnel scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) mentioned, that senior people—and, I am sure, Ministers, with their huge experience—are considering all the time how we best get ready for the conflicts that we do not yet know we are about to face. In conclusion, the Government must embrace a review of how we are developing drones, fast—

    Hansard source
38. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    It is not my place to talk about what the Israeli Government are doing, but I know that there are international laws of conflict, and everybody should adhere to them. In conclusion—I have started so I shall finish—the Government need to embrace this issue, and fast. We cannot afford to wait and see. Britain must foster companies, train our forces and develop countermeasures to ensure that we master this new form of warfare.

    Hansard source
39. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Use of Drones in Defence

    I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. I have huge personal respect and regard for him, and I feel confident that he not only heard what we said today but was already on top of it and recognised it. I trust him to have the grip, the focus and the pace to move forward with this, and he will have our support when he does so. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), gave an excellent speech that literally nearly brought the roof down, with a range of well-informed views that showed his huge experience. His story about going to an SME and hearing about how these small businesses can prepare drones quickly and get them out on the frontline was very striking. I turn to the contribution from the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). As someone who trained as a loader for the Challenger 2, I think it is always good to spend half an hour talking about how we blow them up. That was rather disturbing, but he was right to talk about the Dreadnought moment and the fact that we are at a point of change. That was developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who continued to talk about how he would blow me up. Using the knowledge from his previous career, with passion and compassion he talked about how we must rethink modern conflict. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) talked about the reality of warfare and how drones can be used to keep our soldiers safe, especially with developing AI technologies. She also touched on the ethical and moral issues, which we did not discuss for too long today and are possibly something for further debate. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the pace of change he has seen, with the marvels of science fiction becoming a reality of modern warfare today. To build on the “Star Wars” theme that he developed, I think we all recognise that, with his wisdom, kindness and sagacity, he remains the Obi-Wan Kenobi of Westminster, and we thank him for his contribution. Mostly, what has struck me has been the positive tone of the debate. It goes to show that we in this place are all patriots. As patriots, we recognise that the battlefield is changing, and we have a duty to our brave service personnel to ensure that they are prepared and equipped to fight on our behalf. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the use of drones in defence.

    Hansard source
40. 3 Sep 2025·Parliament·Peter Fortune

    Property Taxes

    After a summer of rumoured tax rises, my constituents are deeply concerned. They are already paying more, because Labour broke its promise to freeze council tax, broke its promise not to increase national insurance, and broke its promises to first-time buyers, small businesses and farmers. Thanks to the Chancellor’s anti-business policies, growth forecasts are collapsing, borrowing costs are sky-high, and our national finances are shot. Instead of looking at its reckless decisions, Labour is now calculating the best way to raise taxes, and my constituents are worried that the Chancellor is eyeing up their family home. In Bromley and Biggin Hill, on the edge of Greater London, homes are expensive. The average house price is well over half a million pounds, and there are rumours that the Government may scrap the private residence relief, which would be devastating. It would slap my constituents with an average £33,000 tax bill when they sell their family home. If someone has scrimped and saved, and been lucky enough to see the value of their home go up, they should not be handed a punitive tax bill. It only serves to knock working people back down when they are trying to get ahead.

    Hansard source