Seasonal Hospitality Businesses in Coastal Areas

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate, which matters enormously to communities like Hartlepool. For far too long, politics in this country has been obsessed with helping the wrong people. Big business gets bigger, shareholders get richer and large cities grow. Meanwhile, the people who keep our towns alive are fighting for survival: the family businesses, the independent hotels, the cafés, pubs and restaurants, and the people who get up before dawn and work seven days a week and take all the risks.

Take Lee and Claire Dexter, who run the Marine Hotel on Seaton Crew seafront in my constituency. Their family-run business has been there for more than 30 years, yet thanks to rising costs, higher business rates and changes to employer national insurance, they face almost £30,000 in additional costs. For Westminster, that might seem like a line on a spreadsheet, but for family businesses, it can mean the difference between investing or standing still, hiring staff or cutting hours, and staying open or closing the doors. Hospitality is not some niche sector in Hartlepool; it is one of our major industries. Restaurants and catering generate more than £95 million in turnover, support 3,400 jobs and contribute more than £47 million in economic value—that is before we even count our hotels, pubs and visitor attractions. Hospitality is not a side issue for Hartlepool; it is jobs, livelihoods and local pride—and it is a huge part of our future.

I ask the Minister: can we be bolder? First, will the Government ensure that business rates reform properly reflects the pressures facing seasonal coastal businesses, including hotels and restaurants as well as pubs? I welcome the action taken on pubs by the Government. Secondly, will Ministers look again at the impact of employer national insurance increases on family-run hospitality businesses? Thirdly, will the Government consider regional variations in jobs taxes to drive investment into left-behind communities? Fourthly, will Ministers recognise that visitor levies are often inappropriate in coastal towns that are still trying to grow their visitor economies? Finally, will the Government bring forward a joined-up plan for coastal hospitality covering taxation, staffing, transport, skills and visitor attractions?

Hartlepool has everything it needs to succeed, and our hospitality businesses have done their bit. They have shown resilience through covid, rising costs and economic uncertainty. Those businesses deserve a fair deal. It is time that Westminster finally gave them one.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the decision on the overnight visitor levy is down to mayoral authorities. They will work really closely with businesses and stakeholders in making that decision, but he raises an important point. I recognise the significant pressures facing pubs, hospitality businesses and breweries, which are facing sustained cost increases. We are closely monitoring the potential impact of disruption to trade and the wider economy, because our priority is to keep prices down for households and businesses. Going forward, we will build on our work to cut energy bills and crack down on unfair profiteering. The new framework that we have announced will help regulators spot trouble early and protect consumers, and we will work with businesses on that. We understand and recognise the pressures, and we will work really closely with businesses to support them.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This week, I hosted the British Beer and Pub Association in Parliament. It has more than 20,000 members across the country, including Camerons Brewery in Hartlepool. Among the many issues that it raised was this summer’s football world cup. In other parts of the UK, late licences are being permitted for all games, but in England and Wales, they are only for England and Scotland games. Will my hon. Friend make representations to her ministerial colleagues about allowing late licences for all games, so that we back our pubs and celebrate this festival of football?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important point. I am looking forward to getting out to the pub and supporting England in the world cup. His point about licensing is really important, and we will work closely with colleagues across Government on that.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill because it believes that politicians should not be running businesses; because expropriating businesses sets a precedent that will deter inward investment into other UK businesses; because the Bill exposes taxpayers to unlimited liabilities; because the powers that the Bill confers on Ministers are far wider in scope than would be required for its stated purpose; and because it fails to contain any measures that would address the issues which are currently making domestic production of steel unprofitable such as higher employment costs and policies in pursuit of net zero, such as carbon taxes and associated regulations and levies.”

Conservatives will never be neutral about the deindustrialisation of our country, but we do not believe that politicians or Whitehall bureaucrats should run businesses. Instead, we need a Government who do fewer things better, such as defending our nation, securing energy supplies and restoring the nation’s finances. We believe in British steelmaking and the importance of sovereign capabilities—not just steelworks, but the steel supply chain, critical minerals and many defence- related technologies—but that is not what this Bill does. This Bill is the Government’s attempt to break out of a mess we warned one year ago they were getting themselves into, and it fails even in the Government’s own terms. It does not keep the blast furnaces open and it does not guarantee that military needs can be met domestically.

Let us be clear what we are doing today. We are being asked to nationalise British Steel, and put the British taxpayer permanently on the hook for a business that this Government had every chance to keep in private hands, but chose not to. They ignored plans to open electric arc furnaces on Teesside, and chose to let the situation deteriorate until the only option left was the one that suited their ideology. The Prime Minister went kowtowing to China, gave it an embassy spy base and, instead of a deal on Jingye, came back with a box of fortune cookies with only a bill for the taxpayer to be found inside.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I just wish to seek some clarity from the hon. Gentleman. Is the Conservatives’ position that they would prefer British Steel in the hands of the Chinese than the British?

[Andrew Griffith]

That was a waste of an intervention. If the hon. Member lets me continue, I will explain exactly what the Conservative plan is for British Steel, and it is a better plan and a more sustainable plan than we have heard from the Secretary of State today. This Government did not inherit—

[Andrew Griffith]

When it suits the hon. Gentleman, he claims to be a fan of the late Margaret Thatcher, but he seems to have forgotten that most of her time in office was spent untangling the mess of Labour’s past nationalisations. Unlike him, she did not bend with the wind or find herself in the same Lobby as a Government who have hiked taxes to record highs, driven wealth offshore and drowned business in red tape.

Members would like to know what our plan is, and our plan is to address the cause, not the symptoms. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do well to listen to this, and we might have more of a steel industry left if they do. We cannot have an industrial policy for steel without an energy policy for industry. Britain has the highest industrial electricity prices in the world, and every choice the Government are making has pushed those prices further up. This week, they voted against new licences in the North sea, choosing to import from Norway gas that could be drilled here, at a cost of 200,000 jobs and £12 billion in tax revenue.

The Secretary of State knows this and his Back Benchers know this, but the Prime Minister is too weak to stand up to his windmill-fetishist Energy Secretary. We have offered an alternative. Our cheap plan would slash energy prices and improve energy security. Why would the Government not want that? If they were genuinely interested in securing the future of steelmaking, as well as those of many other industries, they could have come here today and adopted that plan. Instead, this Bill is an indictment—

[Mr Brash]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily give way, as long as the hon. Member is going to talk about our cheap energy plan.

[Mr Brash]

I have heard that the hon. Gentleman thinks energy prices should come down, and we do not disagree on that, but he still has not answered my question. Does he think British Steel should remain foreign-owned—yes or no?

[Andrew Griffith]

The only way we are going to have a sustainable steelmaking industry in this country, and the same applies to the manufacturing sector and our defence supply chain, is lower energy costs. That is the only sustainable way.

[Mr Brash]

Yes or no?

[Andrew Griffith]

We have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. The Government do not have a plan for sustainable steelmaking. Ministers themselves have admitted that the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will close. They are reverting to a plan that already exists.

The Bill is an indictment of this Government’s modus operandi—a spray and pray Government who write blank cheques from the taxpayer and call that a strategy. We are doomed to relearn the hard lessons of the 1970s: if it moves, tax the hell out of it; when it stops moving, subsidise it. It was socialist idol Tony Benn who wanted to nationalise everything that moved, and one result that the Government may care to look at was the state-owned Kirkby Manufacturing and Engineering company, which simultaneously made car radiators and orange juice. When the Government last ran British Steel in the late 1970s, the company’s losses hit £1.3 billion a year. Since Labour’s botched nationalisation of just a year ago, it has already spent £500 million of taxpayers’ money—£1.3 million a day.

Where is the Government’s published, costed and scrutinised plan for what nationalised British Steel will look like in five years’ time, or even in one year’s time? I have read the Bill and there is not one. There is no provision for a proper impact assessment before the sweeping powers are used. There is no acknowledgment of the monumental decommissioning liabilities—in the billions—that will sit on the Treasury’s balance sheet. There is a sunset clause, but it can be extended indefinitely by Ministers—a sunset where the sun never sets.

The House deserves better than this. We deserve a Bill with a proper thought-through plan. The Government have turned a negotiation into a crisis, a crisis into an emergency and an emergency into this nationalisation. We know that Ministers, however well-meaning, will be unable to resist using their power to tilt the playing field in favour of steel businesses that they themselves own: no longer the referee, they will be on the pitch wearing one of the teams’ shirts. There is no better example of that than their plans on steel tariffs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Government’s decision to move towards the nationalisation of British Steel. It is the right decision for our economy, our industrial communities and Britain’s national security. I say that as somebody who believes in the value of enterprise, competition and a strong private sector, but there are clear cases where privatisation has failed the national interest and where Government have not only the right to intervene but the duty to do so, particularly where foundational industries are now foreign-owned. I was stunned that when the shadow Minister was asked a straight question about whether the Conservatives would prefer British steel to be in the hands of the Chinese or the British, he could not simply answer “the British”. He avoided the question. That shows a staggering disregard for our country’s national security.

Steel is not just another commodity—it is fundamental to our national sovereignty. It underpins our defence industry, infrastructure, energy sector and manufacturing base. A nation that cannot produce its own steel leaves itself vulnerable, dependent on the decisions, priorities and interests of others. We have moved into a different era, although if we listened to some of the contributions from Opposition Members, we could believe that we are still in the 1990s. Globalisation is dead and, to be honest, I welcome its death, because all it ever did was leave working-class communities such as mine behind, ripping out the heart of industrial communities like Hartlepool.

The tragedy is that in this country we still import 68% of our steel needs. We must fix that tragedy. If British taxpayer money is to be spent, then British industry must benefit. If we are building British warships, British steel should be used. If Britain is building offshore wind farms, then British steel should be used. If we are building new nuclear reactors, as we are in Hartlepool thanks to the deal that we struck last September, then British steel should be used. My biggest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that we radically reform procurement policy in this country.

I welcome the steel tariffs being put in place and the assurances given by the Secretary of State that he will look carefully at the individual cases that have been mentioned, but we must put our country first. This Bill is critical to doing that and to protecting the working-class communities I represent.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I listened very carefully to the Minister’s explanation about what exactly we are doing, and I echo the comments from colleagues across the House about the failure to communicate this effectively in the last 24 hours. I have had very upset constituents getting in touch with me about this issue. One report—from Bloomberg—seems to indicate that there is briefing and counter-briefing across Government at the moment and that this move is a departure from our European colleagues. Can the Minister confirm whether we are in fact departing from our European colleagues on these sanctions?

[Chris Bryant]

It is true that this piece of the jigsaw in relation to sanctions policy lies across two Departments. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in charge of sanctions policy, and we in the Department for Business and Trade have responsibility for trade and export licences. That is why there has been a bit of a miscommunication between the two Departments. I have to tell the House that that is entirely my fault and nobody else’s, so if anybody wants to have a go at anybody, they can have a go at me.

On the question about Europe, it is true that the European Union introduced its legislation faster than we did. It did it earlier, before the Iranian conflict came into play. That is one of the reasons why there has been some difference between us. Normally, we try to align ourselves all the way with the European Union and others, but I note that the United States has only today extended its waiver for another month, and I think I am right in saying that Australia and Canada have done something very similar to us. It has been standard practice when we have introduced these kind of sectoral sanctions to do so in a phased way because, apart from anything else, that makes it possible for UK businesses to accommodate themselves.

Royal Mail: Performance

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

My constituents in Hartlepool report letters arriving late, entire streets going days without deliveries and, in some cases, post turning up only once every 13 days—this is not once or twice, but a pattern lasting for months. Let me be absolutely clear, as other Members have been, that this is not the fault of our posties. I have met them and they are hard-working, committed and deeply proud of the job they do. They are just as frustrated as anyone else because they know the service is not what it should be.

The failure lies not with the workforce but with the system. The Royal Mail as an organisation is simply not delivering the service that the public are entitled to expect. We should be honest about why. The privatisation of Royal Mail has gone the same way as rail and water: a public service turned into a private asset, focused no longer on delivery—quite literally in this case—but on what can be extracted. Profit first, service second, and the public and our hard-working posties left to pick up the pieces.

The consequences for my constituents are not abstract but real and serious. Bills arrive late triggering penalties, appointments are missed, and important correspondence simply does not turn up on time or at all. Financial penalties, missed healthcare and the real anxiety caused by a service that is not functioning are not minor inconveniences. Yet these issues are raised with Royal Mail, we are told that they are not long-term problems, but just down to short-term staff absences. With respect, that does not pass the most basic credibility test.

Who gets it in the neck at the end of the day? Our posties on the doorstep. This is profoundly unfair. Royal Mail is failing the public and its workforce. It is a pattern: privatise a public service and it fails the public. So I urge the Minister, who I know is deeply committed, to take on the Royal Mail, and if it does not improve, take it back.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), has just whispered in my ear that he met the main providers in this area only a couple of weeks ago. As I say, I will write to the hon. Member with some more detail. Some of these issues are difficult to land because of the international co-operation needed. I am pleased that in some of our trade deals we are talking about not just goods and services but ensuring a digital element, because that is where a lot of our economic future lies.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

6. What steps his Department is taking to support the hospitality sector in Hartlepool.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I know my hon. Friend has been actively engaging with his local businesses, such as Camerons Brewery, to highlight their importance to the local economy, and I thank him for that. We have introduced permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, while providing £4.3 billion to shield ratepayers from bill increases. On top of that, the Chancellor announced a 15% reduction in new business rates bills for pubs and live music venues, with bills then frozen for a further two years. We are also advancing licensing and planning reforms for the hospitality sector, and through the work of the hospitality support fund, we are providing £10 million to help hospitality venues grow and support jobseekers into the sector. Later this year, we will bring forward a new high streets strategy and work with the industry on its development.

[Mr Brash]

I thank the Minister for her answer. The Marine hotel in Seaton Carew in my constituency of Hartlepool has been run for the last 30 years by Lee and Claire Dexter. It is a family business run by hard-working people who are committed to their community, yet they have seen their business rates rise significantly, driven not by the multiplier but by the sharp increase in the rateable value. They need help, so I welcome the steps set out this week to support pubs. Will the Minister meet me to look at ways that we can fix the business rates system, which is failing hotels and wider hospitality in Hartlepool?

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for championing businesses like the Marine hotel in Hartlepool. Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing large overnight increases. We have announced that we will review the way that hotels are valued. We recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates, and those valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised, and it is right to review this to ensure that it accurately reflects the rental values for these sectors. I am happy to discuss this further.

Sale of Fireworks

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the expert way in which he opened the debate. I think the last time I spoke in a petition debate that he led, Members across the Chamber agreed about mandatory digital ID, so I am hoping for a similar outcome today.

I thank the petitioners, Helen and Graham, everyone else who is in the Public Gallery here today, and the people across the country who have signed the two petitions. In my constituency alone, 361 people signed the petition calling for firework sales to be limited to council-approved events and 227 signed the petition calling for lower noise levels. I have also received 114 emails from Hartlepool residents, all calling for tighter controls or an outright ban on personal use. That tells us something very clear: this is not a niche concern. It is widespread and persistent across the country, including in Hartlepool.

I want to be clear from the outset that I support public firework displays. When they are organised and well managed, they bring communities together. As a child, I loved attending the firework display at Ward Jackson Park in Hartlepool. Hartlepool is fortunate to have a major public display still at Seaton Carew, supported by Hartlepool borough council and sponsored by X-energy, and I am grateful that it continues.

What my constituents are experiencing now, though, goes far beyond a few celebratory nights. Fireworks in Hartlepool begin in September, and intensify through October, November, December and into early January. For weeks at a time, there is no predictability and no break—and that has real consequences: children awoken night after night and elderly residents reporting fear and anxiety. In 2024, Hartlepool police was forced to issue a dispersal order on the Bishop Cuthbert estate where fireworks were being used as weapons, seriously injuring at least one young person. Pets suffer distress, and veterans and others living with trauma are affected by the sudden loud explosions.

Calling for action is not being anti-fun; it is respecting others. There is nothing nanny state about protecting the most vulnerable in our society. Limiting sales to council-approved events would bring order and safety to communities such as Hartlepool. Reducing the maximum noise level to 90 dB is a simple, common-sense approach. Quieter fireworks already exist; alternatives are available.

People in Hartlepool are not asking for celebrations to end. They are asking for balance and fairness. I urge the Minister, who I know has listened intently all afternoon, to listen to the petitions and to the messages from Members across the House and from the people of Hartlepool. The current system is not working and needs to change.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Clearly the strategy will help UK businesses to benefit, but in my hon. Friend’s constituency, Wolverhampton North East, Recyclus Group is already operating a state-of-the-art plant that makes full use of waterless, low-emission processes to recycle lithium-ion batteries. I am sure we will see many such technologies to make use of end-of-life batteries from electric vehicles.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement from the Minister, who is of course my constituency neighbour. He knows full well that we represent areas that built this country and were far too often left behind by the last Government, by globalisation and by deindustrialisation. Can he assure me that this strategy and our wider industrial strategy will benefit those areas, like Teesside and Hartlepool, that did so much to build this country?

[Chris McDonald]

We already have projects for lithium recycling coming forward in Teesside that will benefit my hon. Friend’s constituents in Hartlepool. More than that, investments in nuclear power, the life extension of the existing power station, and small modular reactors in his constituency will all require critical minerals. He is right: the people of Hartlepool did build the UK and, more than that, they are now also the entrepreneurs leading some of these new critical minerals companies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

That is exactly why we are embarking on upgrading the national transmission system and investing in that. I would gently say that the hon. Member’s party seems to be opposing most of that action at the moment, but it is critical not just for future power sources, but to ensure that we can get power to demand centres where we know there are economic growth opportunities. It is hugely important, and that is why we are driving it forward.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Hartlepool has one of the largest clean energy economies in the north of England with thousands of local jobs—jobs that Reform would destroy. At the same time, we have one of the largest nuclear industries. We have signed the biggest deal in our history—jobs that the Greens would destroy. Does the Minister agree that when it comes to energy policy, we’ve got clowns to the left of us and jokers to the right?

[Chris McDonald]

As my constituency neighbour has said, the green energy industry in his constituency is delivering thousands of jobs. On this issue, certainly, I am very happy to be stuck in the middle with him.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Jonathan Brash Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

It would be wrong for me to say that I am fully briefed on the particular issues of that settlement, but I am happy to take that away and write to my hon. Friend. Rolls-Royce winning this contract is a hugely important moment for British innovation. There will be thousands of jobs in the supply chains for this project in constituencies up and down this country.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I welcome this announcement about small modular reactors. Thanks to the landmark deal done back in September, Hartlepool will now lead the world in advanced modular reactors, which will bring £12 billion of economic input and 2,500 jobs, and power 1.5 million homes. The pace in getting that project started is critical, so what will this Government do to ensure that regulatory alignment is in place so that spades are in the ground as soon as humanly possible?

[Michael Shanks]

September seems a long time ago, but during the state visit we announced the UK and US partnership—the Atlantic partnership on advanced nuclear energy—with a commitment from this Government to work with like-minded Governments with similar regulatory regimes to build nuclear, as well as to bring in the private sector much more. My hon. Friend mentions the agreement between X-energy and Centrica, with the plan to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors in Hartlepool. Thousands of good jobs will come with that, and it is a great example of where private investment, unlocked by decisions that this Government have taken, will deliver jobs across the country.

I am happy to come back to my hon. Friend on the timeline, but we have said throughout that we want to move as quickly as possible to make sure that the regulatory regime maintains the safety that the British public rightly expect, while also being flexible enough to ensure we take advantage of these opportunities when they come. We are working on that as quickly as possible.