Westminster Hall
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the closure of high street services in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am extremely grateful to have been granted the time to shed light on the impact that the closure of high street services continues to have on our rural communities. In recent years, exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic, more and more shops on our high streets have closed their doors, leading to less vibrant town centres, reduced footfall to other businesses, job losses and, sadly, a diminished sense of community.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. The Overt Locke is an independent family-run retailer that has been trading in Somerton for more than 100 years but has recently announced that it will close. That heartbreaking decision was accelerated by the Chancellor’s decision in the autumn Budget to freeze the small business multiplier and reduce retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40%, which, with the addition of the national insurance contributions increase, has made the business financially unsustainable. Does my hon. Friend agree that fundamental reform of business rates is needed to boost small businesses and high streets in rural areas, to avoid penalising productive investment?
Jamie Stone
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on that matter later in my contribution.
I want to go back to when I was a boy—some time ago, I might say. My hometown of Tain in the highlands was a vibrant and bustling place. It was a short walk up Shore Road from where I lived, where my father had a small farm, to the high street, where we got everything we needed, from lavatory paper in piles and pyramids in Ross the chemists, via Lesley the grocer, where we could buy broken biscuits in brown paper bags, to Hamilton Cormack, the local solicitor, who played the piano beautifully but, happily, never seemed to send out a bill. We had everything. Tain was a totally self-contained, prosperous community—but, oh my goodness, how very different today.
My constituency in the far north has long faced unique challenges. We have higher living costs, limited transport options and poor broadband connectivity. Rural areas such as mine have to contend with significant disadvantages compared with urban centres. We are all here today to talk about not just the loss of shops, banks and post offices, but the erosion of a way of life and a sense of connection, and a loss of public services and access to essential services that rural communities rely on.
Over recent years, our rural communities have faced unprecedented challenges. Once bustling with activity, like my hometown, they are now marked by shuttered windows and “for sale” signs. The causes are many. We know that they include the rise of online shopping, changing consumer habits, economic pressures and, of course, the rise of large out-of-town centre supermarkets. In my home in the highlands, those trends are compounded by rural isolation and limited access to alternative services. The closure of shops, banks, post offices and other essential services has left many residents in town centres feeling abandoned.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
In my constituency, we have thriving community shops offering a range of services beyond selling goods. For example, Tytherington has an outreach post office, and people can pick up their prescriptions at Hawkesbury Stores in Hawkesbury Upton. Does my hon. Friend agree that for many villages, volunteer-run shops are vital, and the Government need to do more to ensure they remain part of our rural high streets?
Jamie Stone
My hon. Friend is right on the money, and I will return to that point shortly.
Local businesses that once thrived now struggle to compete with online giants offering convenience and lower prices. This shift has not only impacted our economy but deprived our communities of vital gathering spaces—places where people can get together, where relationships are built and strengthened, and where we can have a good natter on the street corner.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Like many places, the high streets in my constituency of Monmouthshire have taken a real battering since covid, but a recent Monmouthshire county council report found a 5% increase in people visiting Monmouth, my town, and an 8% increase in people returning to the high street in Abergavenny. Sadly, we have had 10 bank closures in the last two years and some of our towns, particularly Caldicot, are really suffering from that. A new post office has just opened, which is wonderful, and I commend the community and the local council for supporting it, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government deserve great praise for supporting banking hubs? There will be 300 banking hubs, and I am delighted that one will be opened in Monmouth.
Jamie Stone
I love the words “banking” and “hub”. I also know from my past experience what a lovely town Monmouth is; I had some much-loved cousins who lived just outside the town, and I knew it well some time ago.
Coming on specifically to the closure of banks, face-to-face banking is an essential part of the community, from preventing fraud and helping people who think they have been scammed to conversations about complex financial issues, which we cannot simply pick up from a letter or online. Those are fundamental functions of banks—not privileges that should be reserved for those who live in more urban areas. We know there has been a shift towards digital banking in recent times, but for many in our rural communities, including the elderly, there is not good internet access for a start, and they cannot really use those services, let alone use them to their maximum power. I know of many old people who are totally bamboozled by them.
I am not alone in these concerns. Lloyds Banking Group has recently announced the closure of 136 branches across the UK—that stopped even me in my tracks. The closures include several Bank of Scotland branches. I think that banks have a duty of public service to support local people with their financial needs, but that is a function that I fear many banks seem to have forgotten; I know not why. But there have been some reassuring solutions to the issue of banks closing, which takes me back to those welcome words “banking hubs”.
Run by the Post Office and Cash Access UK, the shared spaces have done amazing work in providing banking services in collaboration with an array of different banks.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the roll-out of banking hubs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although that is good, it needs to happen faster, particularly in smaller towns? Today seems to be high street retailing day—I have a debate this afternoon that concentrates on similar issues—so does he agree that the matter requires innovative, fresh thinking to try to help rural and small-town communities that do not have the services of large cities?
Jamie Stone
Indeed. The hon. Member makes a sound point. My wife hails from Northern Ireland, and I know that the problems there are very similar to those in Monmouth, the highlands of Scotland or wherever.
Recently, my splendid team and I had the pleasure of visiting the Acton banking hub. We were mightily impressed by its operation and commitment to making cash accessible to the community. The good news, turning to the point made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), is that we are going to get a banking hub opened in Wick in my constituency this summer. That will be most welcome. The organisation in charge met the local people last week and the reception was very warm indeed. There is a sense of relief that banking hubs are at long last being rolled out, but the point about the speed of rolling them out is well made.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
A lot of people, when selecting their bank, go to the local town and choose the bank that their parents used; but with the volume of closures taking place we might be getting to the point where banks lose business, as we stop going to the NatWests and the Lloyds, the high street banks of yesteryear, and people start going to online banks. Does the hon. Member agree with me that the banks’ approach is counterintuitive?
Jamie Stone
That point is exceptionally well made. From little acorns, mighty oaks grow, and in the old days a good bank manager would specialise in spotting a potential business that was going to grow, which in turn benefited the bank. We all know of examples over the last 30 or 40 years where that happened.
Banking hubs are not a universal solution, however. In my constituency, the last bank branch in the county of Sutherland, Bank of Scotland in Golspie, is about to close. When it was looked at for a banking hub, it was deemed too small. There is not going to be a banking hub because it did not fit the stats. That means that the whole county of Sutherland—a vast county in the UK—will not have one single bank branch. As I say, access to cash is not the paramount function of banking services; cash access is just the tip of the iceberg in solving the problem of closed branches. It is the other functions I mention, such as face-to-face services, that provide the local community with an invaluable service. The economic impact of these closures cannot be overstated.
High streets are more than just retail hubs; they are engines of the local economy. Returning to my constituency, in the two large towns of Wick and Thurso, which are the largest population centres, high street businesses provide jobs. My two daughters have worked in shops in my hometown of Tain—one in a chemist, the other in a fruit and vegetable shop. The high street attracts visitors who contribute to the local economy—one thinks of Monmouth in that respect.
When these services disappear, so the jobs go. The threat of having to move south when the tourists leave at the end of the tourist season affects the highlands. I know of people who had a summer job; when the tourists go, away they go too, and they may not come back again. That casts that dark old shadow of highland and island depopulation, which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) will know well. It haunts all of us in the more remote areas of Scotland.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Carmarthenshire county council secured half a million pounds through the UK shared prosperity fund in August 2024 to carry out improvement works in Carmarthen town centre, along with match funding improvements in ten of our rural market towns. That money is being used to repair pavements, improve car park entrances and improve the attractiveness of the town centre—improvements that we hope will improve the footfall and tourism within these towns. As we know, however, SPF is due to end at the end of 2026. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should set out their plans for the replacement of the shared prosperity fund, to ensure that our high streets and town centres continue to receive the investment they need to improve and increase footfall?
Jamie Stone
That is a wise point, and I have no reason to doubt that there will be sympathetic ears on the Government Benches—at least, I very much hope so; I do not see why there would not be.
The closures I talk about and the jobs going discourage investment in our towns and regions. Why would a new business choose to set up shop in a town where the high street no longer has high levels of footfall? Why would they open a shop in that street if nobody is going to be there? Those ripple effects extend beyond immediate job losses; they discourage investment in the future.
With fewer businesses operating locally, supply chains are disrupted. This affects farmers, tradesmen and other small businesses who might well rely on high street outlets to sell their goods, and creates a vicious circle that is very hard to break. Money spent in the local economy stays in that local economy. A recent Visa study says that for every £10 spent at independently owned local businesses in the UK, around d £3.80 is retained within the local area. That means local banks, local solicitors and other people supplying that business.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about independent businesses. Surely he agrees that they need somewhere to pay in their takings at the end of the day? In Whitby, our Halifax branch is due to close, meaning that people will have to travel 19 miles to Scarborough. There is a plan to open an adult gaming centre in place of the branch. I know that residents want somewhere to deposit and withdraw their money, including local businesses, rather than somewhere to put their coins in slot machines. Would he agree that, for high streets to survive and thrive, it is essential that we have the banks and services that local residents want?
Jamie Stone
I absolutely agree with that point. In my area of the highlands, employees sometimes have to travel long distances with a large amount of money to deposit it, and I wonder about their safety. For somebody of evil intent, it would be quite easy to target them as they make the bus journey or whatever.
The Visa survey revealed that four in 10 people agree that small businesses local to them make the area a nicer place to live in, and 40% of local business owners said that customer interaction has a positive impact on their overall job satisfaction. My two daughters loved working in the chemist and the fruit and vegetable shop, because it meant happy chat when they saw their friends.
There is a deep-rooted appreciation in our communities for such businesses, which greatly contribute to the value of the local area. That value is felt by those who work for the local businesses and, as a result of feeling appreciated, they feel a sense of higher job satisfaction. Those two phenomena cannot be separated.
In Scotland, 87% of independent retailers take part in some form of community engagement, so we cannot underestimate how important sustaining businesses is to all aspects of community life—[Interruption.] I am aware of the time, and I shall finish my speech very shortly. For example, the Tain Gala is wonderful thing that is much loved by the community, but 20 years ago the businesses would each chip in. As there are fewer businesses on the high street, it is much harder to run the Tain Gala. I am sure the same is true of Stornoway and other towns across the length and breadth of the UK.
Here in Westminster, we are calling for economic investment in our communities to boost growth. I am very grateful to the previous Government for helping to establish the Inverness and Cromarty Firth green freeport, but if we do not have the local infrastructure to support it —the banks and shops—it will be much harder. Without our high street, without our banks, post offices, hairdressers and chemists, it is harder to support the local population.
James Naish
I want to clarify the point about empowering local councils to make a difference. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to remove the shackles from the funding packages that the previous Government give local authorities and empower local decision makers to make decisions in the interests of those locations?
Jamie Stone
I hope Treasury Ministers take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention into consideration.
Jamie Stone
I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Although the challenges are significant, they are not insurmountable. We must be positive about this. To address the problem, we must adopt a multifaceted approach, which hon. Members are hinting at, involving Government intervention, community action and ownership, and private sector collaboration. We need innovation; we cannot just say, “Oh well. We’ll carry on doing things in the way they have been done in the past.” We cannot; we have to do things differently in the future.
The Government must support local councils and prioritise investment in high streets through grants or subsidies for small businesses. An overhaul of the business rate system or rent caps could make it more feasible for entrepreneurs to operate in rural areas. For example, establishing a commercial landowner levy and taxing only the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, would remove physical capital from taxation. That would, in turn, boost business investment, increase productivity and—of attraction to us all—boost wages.
By championing community action, essential services such as post offices or supermarkets could be preserved through encouraging community ownership models. By pooling resources and sharing risks, residents can feel more supported and in control of what is happening in their local area—something they do not feel at the moment.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
On that point, does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that it is disappointing that the Government closed the community ownership fund?
Jamie Stone
That is a wise point, and in calling me “gallant”, my hon. Friend refers to my service in the Territorial Army, but that is a different matter from the one before us today.
At the heart of the debate, surely, has been the need for private sector businesses to take responsibility for the public duty that historically these corporations held. There could be an awful lot more done on that front. Let us see what we can encourage them to do. Simply upping and leaving rural communities because they place more value on footfall found in urban centres is not acceptable. We have to say that the smaller communities are worth it, and encourage these businesses to be there just as much as they might head off to Glasgow, Edinburgh or Aberdeen in my own case, which is not satisfactory.
To conclude, if the private sector collaborated with the Government, and looked at ways to support the high street, real and proper progress could be made in keeping physical stores, bank branches and vital town centre businesses thriving and open in our rural communities. That is a great prize that would mean an enormous amount to our electorates in whatever part of the United Kingdom.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I also remind them that interventions are meant to be very brief if we are to allow everyone to speak in this big debate.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate. He and I know the importance of retaining a physical high street in our own highlands and island communities—the most rural in the country. It is their very rurality—the distance between towns, islands and villages—that makes it so important that we retain high street services in the towns we have.
It is not all decline, of course. In the main town in my constituency, Stornoway, the construction of a £50 million cruise ship terminal by the Stornoway port authority has given a new dynamic to the town. There are now more coffee shops than there are butchers in Stornoway. Although I cherish the memories that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross told us about of buying broken biscuits from his local shop, he must recognise that although times have changed, in the heart of our towns and villages there are older institutions: the butcher—there is a choice of three in Stornoway, and I will not say which one people should buy their Stornoway black pudding from, because they are all good—the crofters store, Tommy Nicolson’s the newsagents, and, as there should be at the heart of every town, the post office.
It is the plight of the post office network, and plans by the Post Office to change or downgrade the Crown offices or the directly managed branches, that I wish to highlight today. I am extremely concerned about the potential closure of the main post office in Stornoway. That move comes as part of a wider announcement that 115 post office branches, which remain Crown offices or directly managed branches, are being considered for closure or moved to a franchise model. Our main branch in Stornoway is extremely valued by islanders—it is a beautiful building that is over 100 years old and in the heart of the town centre.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
On the point about longevity and heritage, Wirksworth Heritage Centre—a key community space and cultural asset in Derbyshire Dales—has recently had to close because of economic pressures. Does my hon. Friend recognise the specific challenges facing cultural and heritage sites on rural high streets?
Torcuil Crichton
I do. I mentioned that the building in which in the main post office—the Crown office—in Stornoway is housed in is beautiful and over a century old. Although I understand that the Stornoway post office may itself be retained, it may be converted into a franchise and moved elsewhere. That would have a detrimental effect on the town centre. The post office is right smack in the middle of town and easily accessible. It is, ironically, next to a closed TSB bank branch—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross highlighted the problems of banks closing across the United Kingdom.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I am delighted that Bodmin in my constituency recently got a banking hub, but other towns like Wadebridge that are an 8 mile, £20 taxi ride away do not have one. Does the hon. Member agree that we could think about mobile banking hubs that would go out to rural areas such as those in his constituency and mine?
Torcuil Crichton
We are lucky that we have retained a mobile banking service in the highlands and islands, with the bank van a familiar sight in villages throughout the islands and parts of the highlands, but a central post office in any town in a rural constituency is vital for businesses to deposit their cash as well as for cruise ship tourists and islanders and town dwellers to exchange their currency. I am concerned that the downgrading of Stornoway’s directly managed branch to a franchise counter would leave many of my constituents disadvantaged.
The Crown post office provides services such as currency exchange, banking services and passport services that many franchised post offices do not. To go to another Crown office or to find bureaus elsewhere would involve an hour-long bus journey, which would be preceded by a three-hour ferry journey, because the nearest branch would be on the mainland somewhere near the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. The limited services offered by a franchised post office would not be adequate for my town or any other, because, as I understand it, there is no requirement for them to accommodate the full spectrum of post office services that directly managed branches currently offer.
Concerned MPs have met Post Office executives and highlighted their concerns to the Minister. I hope that the Post Office and the Government take into account rurality and the unique circumstances of island constituencies when considering the future of post offices and the rural high street.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We have quite a lot of speakers, so I will limit speeches to three minutes each so that everyone will get an opportunity to get in the debate. I reiterate that interventions should be brief so that colleagues get the opportunities that they are here for.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate. There are no bustling city centres in the Tewkesbury constituency. Instead, our historic town and village high streets are characterised by independent stores, restaurants and pubs, which provide jobs and attract tourism. Less overtly, they promote social inclusion and tackle loneliness.
My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the loss of connectivity and isolation. The largest age demographic in my constituency is the over-65s. They are typically less mobile than younger demographics and are more likely to live alone. According to Age UK, more than a million older people say that they regularly go over a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member. The withdrawal of high street services is only likely to amplify the loneliness epidemic, particularly for my residents. Recently, I was pleased to work with the excellent independent councillor Gemma Madle to return post office services to residents in Winchcombe after a period of time when they had lost them.
Almost half of the Tewkesbury constituency is categorised as within the lowest 30% of decent broadband connectivity across the UK. That is a shameful indictment of the national planning policy framework in a constituency largely comprised of the fastest-growing borough outside London. That again disproportionately exposes my over-65s, because their demographic has a lower rate of IT literacy than younger groups. Those older residents who do adopt technology to access online services are most likely to become victims of fraud: Age UK reported in 2019 that someone over 65 is defrauded every 40 seconds in the UK, and that not only the impact of that but even that threat is likely to dissuade residents from venturing online.
Those examples show why it is especially important that my constituents have reliable public transport links to get them to our high streets, and that those high streets are preserved so that people can access the services they need. Currently, public transport links are woefully inadequate across my constituency; although the bus fare cap rise from £2 to £3 is unwelcome, it is unlikely to affect those thousands of my residents who do not even have a reliable bus service. If the cap rise were utilised to fund additional services in constituencies such as mine, I would support it. Regardless, I urge the Government to look at alternative measures for public transport, such as on-demand services. One example is the Gloucestershire Robin service.
I hope that the Minister will commit to funding the infrastructure upgrades that my constituency already needs, if it is expected to grow yet further to accommodate the Government’s housing targets.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. I am thinking back to when my mum and dad were shopkeepers. This was 1959, when I was only four years old—that is my age out now. I remember our shop in Ballywalter, in the country. It was the shop where people bought everything. They could buy all their groceries. They could buy anything from a nail to clothes—my mother dealt with that side of the shop. We had coal. We had venetian blinds—my goodness, can you remember venetian blinds? We also had all the meal for the cattle. Those were the shops that people had way back in those early days.
I am blessed to have not one but two great high streets in my constituency. Ballynahinch has wonderful shops, yet we all know that it would massively benefit from the proposed bypass to allow people to nip into town and come out without worrying about the commuter traffic. Newtownards, the central town for the constituency, has been a market town since its inception in the 1600s. It has a great history. It has one of the UK’s oldest market crosses—an indicator of the business carried out over hundreds of years. Indeed, we still have a thriving Saturday market. We also have independent boutique retailers that can kit people out—man and woman; boy and girl—with everything. That is the sort of shop we have.
Unfortunately, what we also have now is a rise in store closures. That is something we did not have in Newtownards for a long time, but we have definitely had it over the last year.
Jim Shannon
If the intervention is very quick, given Ms Furniss’s comments.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the hon. Member for allowing the intervention. His mention of that store brought to mind a wonderful store in my constituency called Handyman House, which still serves people with all the different things that he mentioned. Is the hon. Member concerned also about libraries—the fact that we must keep our libraries open, not reduce their hours? They are incredibly important for our high streets as community gathering spaces and also a space where, obviously, people can read books.
Jim Shannon
Absolutely. We are fortunate to have a number of libraries in my constituency—in Ballynahinch, Killyleagh and Newtownards. The draw of the libraries is really important, and I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.
Ards truly has it all. It has won Northern Ireland High Street of the Year on multiple occasions. But we have lost a number of bank units. We lost the Halifax, Bank of Ireland and First Trust, but we retain Nationwide, Danske Bank, Santander, the Progressive Building Society and Ulster Bank, and long may that continue. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate. I am trying to be really quick, Ms Furniss. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Perhaps he can outline, as he always does, the contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that we can learn from here and there can be lessons from us to people here as well.
If the Minister does not mind my respectfully saying this, I have to express concern over the issue about national insurance contributions and what that will do to all the small shops. Some of the small shops have told me about how it will affect them, and it really is quite worrying. One shop employs eight people. The profit margin of 15% comes down to 1% with all the rates, rent, employment costs and so on, but the owner still has to feed his family. The bigger stores—the Tescos and Matalans—can do better.
I will finish with this, Ms Furniss; I am ever conscious that many people want to speak. I am thankful for the Newtownards chamber of trade and its innovations, from evening markets to children’s fun days, in co-operation with the local council, Ards and North Down borough council. They are there to keep Ards thriving. I just do not see, unfortunately, the same energy top down. I hope that this debate is the beginning of changes for the high street retailers and Government working to retain and enhance their place in this country. When I speak here, I speak for every shop, not just in my constituency, but across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, because that is where the benefits are. I look to the Minister for a positive response.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing this debate to Westminster Hall today. I am proud to represent the constituency of Rushcliffe, which includes large swathes of rural Nottinghamshire. From Cotgrave to East Leake, rural communities across my constituency are facing ongoing challenges, as the services that many residents rely on are slowly disappearing. Banks, post offices, pharmacies and even pubs, once the lifeblood of villages and towns, are shutting their doors, leaving many residents increasingly isolated and without the essential services they need.
For me, and I think many hon. Members present, this issue is not just about convenience. As has been described, it is about social cohesion, economic sustainability and the fundamental right of rural residents to access the same level of services as their urban counterparts. If we are to ensure that our rural communities are thriving rather than declining, we must take action to address the concerning trends that we have witnessed over the past decade.
The statistics paint a worrying picture. Between 2015 and 2023, more than 6,000 bank branches closed across the UK, with rural areas hit hardest. We have talked about post offices, which often serve as a replacement for lost banking services, but they are also under immense pressure: in 2000, the UK had more than 17,500 post offices; today, that number has fallen to 11,500.
Also key are pharmacies, which I do not believe have been mentioned yet. They too are vanishing from our communities. The National Pharmacy Association warns that closures are accelerating, leaving many rural residents, especially elderly and disabled individuals, without easy access to prescriptions and essential healthcare advice.
Ben Maguire
Bodmin, in my rural constituency of North Cornwall, has lost almost all its pharmacies; it has one on the high street. The Cornwall health and wellbeing board has stipulated that no two pharmacies can be within 1 mile of each other, meaning that any future pharmacies will have to be at least 1 mile out of town. Does the hon. Member agree that that rule is not helpful to our high streets, and certainly not helpful to our residents in rural areas, who struggle to get to pharmacies?
James Naish
I absolutely agree. I am strong supporter of the Pharmacy First initiative, and it is essential that as a Government we look at ways to expand that scheme, so that more and more people use their pharmacies and the pharmacies are therefore more sustainable.
On average, 29 pubs close every week in the UK, and in many cases there is no alternative place for our communities to gather. We need urgent action to reverse this decline, and in my view Government support is critical.
I welcome initiatives around banking hubs, but we also need to press our banks harder to ensure that they fulfil their moral obligations to our communities. I welcome the high street auction initiatives, which allow vacant properties to be brought back into use. It is vital that we unshackle funding to empower local councils and decision makers to support their areas. I also encourage the Government to accelerate business rates reform, which I know we are committed to.
We must ensure that rural communities have the same access to essential services as urban centres. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can all work together to safeguard vital community assets and keep our rural high streets alive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Members to keep strictly to three minutes. You are going over that limit and speaking other people out. If you cannot keep to the limit, we will have to put the timer on, and you will be cut short.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.
Businesses in Littleport, Soham and Ely work hard to keep the high streets lively, but they are undermined by increasing costs and reduced services. Barclays bank pulled out of Ely recently, and now just has a hub in the library. Hard as it is in the market towns, it is even harder in our villages. Any banks left years ago, and many post offices and, as we have heard, chemists have closed. With limited public transport, people struggle to access cash, services and goods.
Pubs, which struggled before covid, find it hard to maintain regular opening hours and in some cases to remain open at all. For many of our villages, pubs are the only public spaces left, as we have heard. Cash-strapped local authorities cut back on maintaining the public realm, making our high streets less attractive. Under-resourced police struggle to address the increasing problem of shoplifting. Business rates are high and increase if businesses improve their properties. The recent Budget increased staff costs, and when a neighbouring business closes, those premises remain empty for months. At best, that is unattractive; at worst, it attracts vandalism and antisocial behaviour.
The Government really need to support our high streets by getting on with overhauling business rates, supporting improvements to the public realm and allowing our local authorities to engage and get these empty properties into use again. We need to make our high streets more attractive so that we have services for our communities.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate. I have enjoyed every one of my visits to Scotland, but none more so than to the very north of Scotland.
Many rural areas, such as my own South West Norfolk constituency, have seen services decrease over the past 14 years, often forcing people to travel very long distances to access some of the most basic services. That is difficult enough, particularly if someone is elderly or disabled, but is even more challenging given the lack of public transport options in these communities. Just last week, I was informed of another local convenience store closing in a rural village in my constituency—another blow to our community.
I was pleased to attend a meeting of the Association of Convenience Stores last week, where we spoke about how crucial these stores are to their communities. Fortunately, I can still think of a number of brilliant local examples bucking the trend in South West Norfolk: Yallops, for example, in Mundford—a post office, a shop and a butcher’s. The successful ones seem to be multi-purpose.
Sarah Dyke
The Butleigh village shop in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton will shut its doors for the final time and the post office alongside it will go, leaving the constituents without two essential services. Does the hon. Member agree that we must invest in small, rural shops so that they can maintain essential services such as a post office?
Terry Jermy
Absolutely; I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. That was very much the conversation we had last week about how we can support rural stores and bring more services together to make them multi-purpose. I recently visited the community-owned Blue Bell pub in Stoke Ferry. The last pub in the village, it now delivers a whole range of vital services over and above the traditional pint. I pay tribute to Jim and Sandra McNeill, two of the driving forces behind that ambitious project.
I have a strong passion for delivering services closer to where people are, particularly in our rural communities, rather than, for example, forcing even greater numbers into giant hospitals that are often long distances away. I love the idea of popping down to the local boozer to get a blood pressure check or a flu jab. The old cottage hospital model and outreach services have all gone, pushing people into giant hospitals. We have got to get people out into the community. I remember going to get my blood pressure checked or my blood taken; I would pop into the town centre or the village to buy stuff while I was there. We have been forcing people out of villages and into towns and cities.
We need to talk about connectivity—roads, trains, broadband and mobile phone signals—because the growth potential in rural communities is significant. I am pleased with what the Government have done so far, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this vital debate.
As in many rural areas across the country, high-street services in my constituency of Yeovil have slowly vanished. That includes banks, businesses and pharmacies, as well as culture and leisure facilities. Many of the banks in my constituency have shut their doors. Lloyds bank has closed its branch in Ilminster, and is now closing its branch in Chard. Although we have managed to secure a banking hub for Crewkerne, Ilminster and Chard have been denied banking hubs, despite having the same needs as Crewkerne.
I urge the Government to reassess how appropriate LINK’s criteria for suggesting banking hubs are for rural communities. I still do not believe that travel times or rural geography are being properly considered. There also needs to be as much emphasis in LINK’s assessments on maintaining face-to-face services as there is on access to cash.
Alison Hume
On banking hubs, it has not come up in this debate that we are losing banking services that are open five days a week for a banking hub that, in the case of Whitby, is only open one day a week for a few hours. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a big reduction?
Adam Dance
I agree; it is a big reduction. Fortunately, in Crewkerne in my constituency, our banking hub will be open five days a week, but I agree that they need to be reassessed.
Beyond banks, many businesses on the high street in my constituency have had to close, such as Kazbar in Yeovil. The broken business rates system has been a significant driver of many of those closures. If we want to support businesses on rural high streets, we need a commercial landowner levy, which would tax only the land value of commercial sites.
Pharmacies also provide vital services to our high street. The 20 pharmacies in my constituency are at the heart of local healthcare but are under severe pressure. Across the country, an estimated 1,200 pharmacies have had to close over the last seven years. I hope that the Government reassure us today that, in their discussions on the 2025-26 funding contract, they will focus on reaching an agreement that exempts our pharmacies from the rise in employer national insurance contributions.
Finally, we must not forget the vital cultural services that our high streets can provide. I had the honour of opening Yeovil’s new amphitheatre at the Triangle, which creates a new public open space and focal point for events. We need more projects like that, but between 2010 and 2024 annual spending on culture and leisure services saw a real-terms fall of £2.3 billion. It is vital that local authorities receive more funding from the Government to support the arts and culture so that we can provide excellent culture projects to regenerate our high street.
In conclusion, the tide of closures on our high streets must be reversed. Our constituents deserve high streets that they can be proud of, and which provide services we need, not boarded-up shops.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
There are still many of you wishing to speak, so I will restrict you each to two minutes because we want to hear a response from the Minister and the spokespeople. I call Alison Hume.
Alison Hume
I would like to give my time to somebody else. I have intervened on the subjects I wish to speak about.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) for that. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.
Stowmarket’s high street is called Ipswich Street. It is the central artery of the town, running through Stowmarket from the historic marketplace. Only a few years ago, it was a busy street, bustling with commercial activity. People came to Stowmarket from nearby villages to go shopping. Many of them went on to visit other attractions, such as the amazing Food Museum—which I recently visited—and the John Peel Centre for Creative Arts. However, stores started to close, one after another, and six shopfronts now lie completely empty. It is a familiar scene up and down the country: high streets disfigured, with vacant shops sticking out like missing teeth. That has a terrible effect on local communities. As the stores close, the town centre becomes trapped in a vicious circle: few people want to go shopping, the high street is full of boarded-up shops, footfall declines and more stores close. We have heard about that in this debate. My colleagues will be familiar with the problem of banks vacating the high streets—indeed, we now have more food banks than actual banks in this country. Other shops follow the banks in shutting their doors. The town centre loses the café and the pub that both performed a vital service as focal points for the community.
The Government must find a way to mitigate the effect of these stores closing. Times change, commercial life and society have changed, but let us preserve the high street.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
In North Norfolk, half of my constituents live in settlements of just a few hundred houses, or even fewer; the other half live in market towns, all but one of which have populations well under 10,000. The health of our rural high street is probably the most significant barometer of prosperity, economic health and the state of the nation, so it is imaginably disastrous whenever any business shuts up shop.
We have been extremely lucky, not least in the success of Lib Dem-led North Norfolk district council in securing funding for things like the heritage action zone project in our largest town, North Walsham, which has created a new sense of vibrancy and optimism by refurbishing the town centre and giving many of the historic shopfronts a much-needed facelift. But street furniture and material renovation alone cannot mask the fact that our rural high streets are suffering. That is in no small part down to a gradual managed decline of rural services. Yesterday morning, I had the pleasure of cutting a ribbon on the brand-new banking hub in Holt. Holt lost its final bank branch in 2021, and ever since I have been working alongside the community to protect access to banking services and cash. We continue to lose bank branches across the constituency. I am campaigning hard for better access to banking in those towns where the last ones are starting to look flaky.
In Wells-next-the-Sea, we are at risk of losing our visitor information centre, which faces a funding shortfall. I am pledged to work alongside them to find new funding streams. It is a vital shop window for our local businesses and attractions. I cannot help but reflect that the crisis in local government funding is also putting high street services at risk.
Those high street services are so vital to our community. In North Norfolk we have the oldest population in the country, so easily accessible services are a lifeline for many of my constituents. Preserving and protecting services is a top priority for local people, so a top priority for me. I welcome this debate as a chance to shout about the challenges they face and will continue to ensure that the Government are giving my community the support it needs.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this timely debate.
We heard last week that the banks will be closing their doors to more customers. Lloyds Banks has decided to close an extra 136 bank branches, despite making £7.5 billion in pre-tax profit in 2023, an increase of 57 %. That followed years of tax cuts given to it by the previous Conservative Government. Lloyds has decided to reward its customers by closing its doors to them. Shame on Lloyds Bank. Banks have been permanent fixtures on our high streets for centuries. The Lloyds branch in Brecon was founded in 1778 and is part of our town’s history.
Bank closures will reduce footfall in our town centres, hurting the local economy. Pontardawe’s Lloyds bank will also close in November. More than 300 local residents have already told me about the challenges that will cause them. The elderly and vulnerable people in Pontardawe deserve to have somewhere safe and easy to go to access their own cash. The same is true of local businesses. Pontardawe is a gorgeous town with some very successful high street businesses. The bank’s closing will make life harder for those local traders.
The banks are abusing their market dominance to pile pressure and costs on to local businesses that can ill afford it. Local traders are being told to make further journeys just to access cash. That is piling the costs on to them, and our local economies will suffer as a result. Imagine being a wheelchair user in Presteigne. After the bank branch on its high street closes on 3 March, the nearest banking hub—when it opens—will be in Leominster, 14 miles away. The bus journey to get there is two and half hours. Why are we letting our banks do that to people?
While those bank branches are open the Government must ensure that they remain so. They should remind Lloyds and all other banks that the Government are in charge, setting the conditions for our banks, and not the other way round.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I would also like to thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
The wonderful towns of West Dorset may be small, but they are mighty. The resilience of our local businesses cannot be overstated. The Liberal Democrat-run town councils have done a brilliant job in supporting the high streets and working with local businesses to help them to recover from the ravages of covid. Our towns of Bridport, Dorchester and Sherborne have seen encouraging signs, but we should be clear that there is still much work to be done to ensure their long-term success.
In Bridport, where footfall is rising, the town boasts an impressive array of independent retailers, markets, pubs and cultural venues such as Bucky Doo Square. Bridport and West Bay enjoy 596,000 day visits a year, and up to £49 million in tourism spending, including £10 million on shopping alone, driven in no small part by the packed calendar of community events. Retail unoccupancy in the town is just 7%, significantly below the national average of 14%. However, even with that success, the number of vacant shops remains above pre-pandemic levels, and we cannot afford complacency.
Dorchester’s Sunday market draws over 10,000 visitors, leading some businesses to extend their opening hours. That is a positive step, but we must build on that momentum. Seasonal fluctuations remain a challenge in West Dorset, and without Government support, the improvements we have seen risk being undone. Sherborne, too, has shown the ability to attract new businesses with cultural events, such as its Abbey concerts, the Literary Society’s festival, the Sherborne International Film festival and the Sherborne festive shopping day, helping to bring more people to the town.
There are also challenges in Sherborne; its last remaining bank is soon set to close and be replaced by a banking hub. That transition highlights the ongoing struggle to maintain essential services in rural communities. There must be clear action, because business rates and rising national insurance costs are placing additional pressure on small enterprises which have already weathered so much. Our local producers, farmers and microbusinesses, which form the backbone of West Dorset’s economy, need targeted support to navigate the economic challenges.
Our high streets are not just places to shop; they are where communities come together. In Bridport, R. J. Balson & Son was established in 1515 and it is the oldest butcher’s in the country. Family-run businesses and local markets instil a sense of community belonging, and those businesses need our help, not just from consumers who we must urge to shop locally rather than online, but from Government policies that recognise the unique challenges of high street communities.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate.
Rural high streets make up the heart of the local communities, and it is vital to draw attention to the difficulties they face. One crucial service run on rural high streets is banking. My area of the country is not blessed with good broadband connectivity, making online banking a difficult task. Many of my constituents were also not born into the digital age, and for them, changing to online and mobile banking can be difficult.
The high streets across my community include some 15 community pharmacies. They are all threatened by the perilous financial state of the health sector. Pharmacies need a better deal from the Government and a real-terms funding uplift, preferably backdated to account for the fall in value that the sector has seen. Without that, we will risk losing those vital services from the high street.
The constituent part of the high street are the businesses that make up the vibrant centre—whether they are the fantastic cafés such as Whelans, where I regularly grab a mid-morning snack in Wiveliscombe when hosting surgeries, or the charity shops where I regularly buy the clothes I showcase on my social media—and it is those businesses and more which engender the spirit of community and truly make up the high street.
If we lose our high streets in rural settings, it will be very hard to get them back. The old market towns and villages across my constituency hold cherished memories. It is not too late, but we need to act fast and with urgency, otherwise rural communities will continue to see those services moving away from their high streets. I hope that this Government are up to the challenge, but I remain to be convinced.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
Across rural areas, including in my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, we are seeing too many high streets lined with empty shops, despite strong demand from small businesses eager to establish themselves. We have sadly seen announcements of Lloyds Bank closing branches in Alcester and Shipston-on-Stour We have been promised a banking hub for Alcester, and now we need to ensure that banking services are kept in Shipston.
Our small businesses are the backbones of the rural economy, and they are struggling. That is not just an issue of declining footfall, but of landlords who are holding out for unrealistic rents, and the current business rates regime.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The hon. Member will know that many shops have been resilient to increased costs over recent years, but does she agree that the hike in national insurance contributions and increase in wage in the recent Budget have created a cliff edge for businesses? We will see the hospitality sector fall over, and there needs to be a bespoke support package in place for those businesses.
Manuela Perteghella
I completely agree. Many hospitality businesses have written to me about the damage from the hike in national insurance contributions.
Prime retail spaces have been left unused while our rural economy struggles. The old BHS building in Stratford-upon-Avon, which is located at one of the town’s principal gateways, has been left empty and derelict for almost 10 years. Local authorities must be given powers to step in and act. Strengthening compulsory purchase powers is a step in the right direction, allowing communities to take back control of neglected properties and revitalise their high streets. High street rental auctions will make a difference on empty properties up and down the country, and I hope to see them rolled out in my constituency soon. With the right support, our rural towns and villages can become thriving hubs of local enterprise, boosting the economy, social inclusion and community spirit.
Cameron Thomas
I am very fond of my hon. Friend’s constituency. I recall a visit to Stratford-upon-Avon for a stag do, when my friends and I embarked on one of its many ghost tours—I have to say that my Geiger meter was unmoved. There is so much about her constituency and mine that adds to the character of the UK, and I am sure she will agree that it is worth investing in.
Manuela Perteghella
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for promoting our fantastic town walks in Stratford-upon-Avon and I fully agree with him. The Government must ensure that local authorities and community groups have the tools they need to make this change happen.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the losses suffered in his constituency. I commend him for championing this issue, because the story is similar across much of the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate, but the Great British high street is struggling, and nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in our rural communities. The high street is the lifeblood of a village or small town, and it is often the reason it grew in that location in the first place, yet across the country, from Cumbria to Somerset to Norfolk, many high streets are struggling to keep their businesses open, producing a cycle of decline in which vital services close their doors and the local population is left worse off.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that closures of bank branches and free-to-use cash machines are making it increasingly difficult for some people to get cash and to do their banking in person. In last week’s post office debate, I explained how my constituents and I were awaiting a decision on an appeal to Link following its rejection of a banking hub in Wokingham. Our appeal was rejected. The frustration of dedicated campaigners in Wokingham, such as Lynn Forbes, is palpable and I share it. However, we will keep going to get a banking hub. The existing banking services in Wokingham are not suitable and I am concerned that if the post office in WHSmith, which offers banking services, has to close due to external factors, the situation will be made much worse. One constituent wrote to tell me that they waited 45 minutes to withdraw £15 from the post office. That is just unacceptable.
Link stated in its review of the appeal that, under the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, its assessment criteria are based on access to cash and not access to banking. That is wrong. Can the Minister explain why consideration of bank access is excluded when determining the location of a banking hub? Will he commit to introducing further legislation to require protection of bank access? I also call on the Government to make changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act to help foster more community banking hubs.
The impact of losing these services on our rural communities is clear, as older and vulnerable people, who rely on face-to-face services, become lonelier and experience great difficulty in accessing essential services. The situation is entrenched by digital exclusion; not all residents can use online banking or shopping, particularly in areas with poor broadband. House of Commons Library data shows that my constituency of Wokingham has above-average download speeds. I recognise the fortune of our circumstances, but the village of Finchampstead in the constituency is in the bottom 30% of UK download speeds. Wargrave, Hurst, Swallowfield and Spencers Wood are also in the bottom 30% for superfast availability. Does the Minister agree that we need to prioritise rural areas when rolling out broadband improvements?
As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, there is urgent need to reform business rates. Proper reform should help the viability of many high street retailers. Local councils can and should work with town centre businesses to keep the high street as lively as possible. I am very pleased that my local Liberal Democrat council in Wokingham is taking the initiative on trying to improve our high streets.
Transport is also key. When the community loses its nearby centre, people must travel further, adding transport costs and inconvenience. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes especially. It is a decision that will make congestion worse and travel by public transport more expensive. While the Government have been left to make difficult choices, they cannot allow the burden of fixing the Tories’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country. If the Government were serious about growth, they would invest in services that will boost our struggling town centres and high streets. What steps are the Government taking to support rural bus services and the provision of alternatives to conventional bus services where they are not viable, such as dial-a-ride and on-demand services?
Finally, rural health services are under strain, and some local GP practices are shutting down or merging into larger, harder-to-reach facilities. Others were simply not there in the first place, such as in Arborfield Green in Wokingham. Wokingham is in the Berkshire West integrated care board area and we have 2,105 patients per GP, nearly 500 more than the English average. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is adequate space for primary care facilities across new build developments and in rural areas?
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. We have had a delightful virtual tour of every one of the nations around our United Kingdom this morning.
I speak not only as the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade but as the MP for rural Arundel and South Downs in West Sussex. The vast majority of my constituents live in rural areas. They rely on small high street businesses and services, including pharmacies, post offices and local banks, for all aspects of their lives—to access cash, to put food on their table, to pour their pints and to provide the products they need to care for themselves and their families. Local high streets are the heart of our communities, and we are talking today about a fragile ecosystem—an ecosystem that is facing extinction.
The choices that the Government made in the autumn statement will be terminal for thousands of businesses on our high streets across the country. It is difficult to overstate the headwinds that the Government have placed upon those businesses. The jobs tax—the increase in national insurance contributions and reduction in the threshold—means that employers will be forced to pay more and will leave shopkeepers, hairdressers, postmasters and publicans wondering how they will keep staff on their payroll this year. It is a highly regressive measure that will hit the low paid and part time the most. The chief executive officer of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, has said that the increase in NICs will cost the hospitality industry more than £1 billion, and predicts business closures and job losses within the year. Not a single pub, café or restaurant on our rural high streets will go untouched.
The Government’s decision to restrict flexible employment contracts will predictably leave high street businesses, which rely on flexible staff, in an impossible situation, without any hope of staffing for seasonal peaks and troughs. The British Institute of Innkeeping has warned that the Budget will cause 75% of pubs to cut their hours, 40% to reduce further their opening times, and one in three to make staff redundant. That was always a predictable outcome.
The cancellation of the community ownership fund has removed a potential safety net for communities. For business owners who have built a legacy, taking risks and employing local people over the course of their career, there is a real question mark over what will happen to their enterprise following the Government’s vindictive family business death tax. The Farm Retail Association said yesterday that as many as one in two farm shops could be forced to close their doors in the coming years. Farm shops are being hit by one aspect of the Budget, and local farmers who supply produce by another.
A number of Members rightly spoke about the importance of local post offices and banking hubs. They are absolutely right that they are a crucial lifeline for isolated communities, and I know from personal experience that they have been forced to overcome challenges in recent years. Banking hubs are important not just for access to cash, but to support the growing elderly proportion of our population. They are also vital in enabling high street traders to deposit their takings so that they can continue to take cash. As the responsible Minister at the time, I opened some of the earliest banking hubs. The Minister has continued to pursue that agenda, and I hope he will confirm today that the target of 500 banking hubs—one for almost every constituency—by 2030 remains.
The official Opposition will not apologise for standing up for small businesses. I believe that the Minister is a good man, but he should admit the truth that he will not speak: the Treasury does not have businesses’ back. Unless rapidly reversed, the measures in the Budget will devastate access to rural services and ruin our rural high streets. People will lose their jobs, and shutters will close forever.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. In the usual way, let me, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.
We have heard a series of powerful speeches from Members from Northern Ireland and from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and some particularly strong speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), for Rushcliffe (James Naish), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). I note in passing that not one Conservative Back-Bench MP or Reform MP is present to champion rural areas. I gently say to the shadow Minister that if the previous Government had done a slightly better job, this debate would perhaps not be necessary.
I will address as many of the points that have been raised as I can, but let me first say this. It goes without saying that our high streets play a vital role in providing a place for communities to come together, work, socialise, shop and access essential services. I very much share the passion of Members across the Chamber for ensuring that all communities in rural areas have access to those services, wherever they are in the UK. Rural areas offer significant potential for economic growth. More than half a million businesses are registered in rural areas, and the rural economy contributes more than £315 billion a year in England alone. The Government are committed to improving the quality of life for people living and working in rural areas, in part so that we can realise the full potential of rural businesses.
If a high street or town centre is to flourish, residents, businesses and councils must work together to develop their own unique offer for the high street that resonates with the local community. That is why this Government are focused on our five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets: addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime, reforming the business rates system, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, and empowering communities to make the most of the vacant properties with which rural communities, and indeed urban ones, are all too familiar. We have already made progress on that plan.
My Department is working with others across Government to ensure that we do all we can to create thriving high streets now and long into the future. Our small business strategy, which we will publish later this year, will set out further plans to support small businesses on the high street and beyond. We want to support efforts to ensure that all our high streets are places for our businesses, local people and visitors, creating jobs and economic growth wherever they are in the UK. When thinking about solutions to the future of the high street in rural areas and more generally, we need to recognise that no two high streets are the same, and that the way we live and work is evolving quickly.
A series of hon. Members raised the issue of high street banks and branch closures. The UK branch network is now below 5,000—half what it was in 2015—and although the banks point to the increasing use of digital channels for day-to-day banking, access to cash and in-person banking services are still essential for many, not least the elderly and the vulnerable, who often need face-to-face engagement to get their banking sorted.
Jim Shannon
I commend the Minister for his response. My constituency has lost the most banks—I think we have lost 12 over the years. It is obscene and immoral that the banks are making exorbitant profits, in the hundreds of millions, at the same time as they close branches and deny pensioners and vulnerable people the right to bank access. Has the Minister spoken to the banks about their immorality in relation to their profits, and their dedication and responsibility to vulnerable people?
Gareth Thomas
We certainly want the banking industry to do more to work with us as a Government to ensure that there is much better access to financial services, in particular for small businesses. Too often, one of the big pressures facing small businesses is accessing the finance they need to expand and thrive. We know that good access to finance for small businesses is not universal; that is a challenge not only in rural areas, but more generally. We will continue to press the financial services industry generally, and banks specifically, in that space.
The Government have said that accessing physical banking services is important, which is why we are working closely with banks to roll out 350 banking hubs to provide people with critical cash and banking services on their doorstep. The hubs offer basic counter services, provided by post office staff, that allow people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. Many hubs also have dedicated rooms where customers can see community bankers from their own banks to discuss things such as staying safe from fraud, adding a lasting power of attorney, making payments or registering for online banking.
David Chadwick
Ystradgynlais is the biggest town in my constituency, and it has a catchment area of 24,000 people. People there tell me that they experience long waits when they go to use the post office, and that post office staff have lost cheques and made other errors that have created problems for local businesses. Does the Minister agree that a post office is no substitute for a functioning bank branch run by trained staff?
Gareth Thomas
Having some Welsh blood, I am instinctively sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. I would not put it in quite the way that he did, but if he and his constituents have concerns about the service that the post office provides in his constituency, I am happy to take those up. Perhaps outwith this debate, he might drop me a line or have a word; I am certainly willing to press the post office. I will come back to the question of post office banking services.
Just before Christmas, the Chancellor opened the 100th banking hub in Darwen in Lancashire. Out of the 100-plus that have now opened, 12 are located in Scotland, seven in Wales and five in Northern Ireland. This is just the start. I am pleased that Cash Access UK and LINK have announced that over 200 banking hub locations have been recommended, including a further four in Wales, one in Northern Ireland and 17 in Scotland. Among those will be a new banking hub in Wick, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross mentioned. I acknowledge his work and campaigning for the banking hub in Wick, which I hope goes some way to addressing the concerns in his constituency that he mentioned.
On the question of banking hubs, I should say that where they are located is determined independently by LINK, the operator of the largest ATM network in the UK. An access to cash review can be requested via its website, which also sets out the criteria it uses for considering locations for banking hubs. These include population size, whether other banks remain nearby, the number of small and medium-sized enterprises on the high street and public transport links, as well as the level of vulnerability in the community.
When it comes to big high street banks pressing ahead with closures, we expect all banking firms to follow closely the Financial Conduct Authority’s branch closure guidance in supporting their customers.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister allow me to intervene?
Gareth Thomas
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but he has only just rocked up to the debate, so if he will forgive me, on this occasion I will not give way. If there is a specific issue about which he wants to write to me, I would be happy to look at it.
Hon. Members will know that the FCA engages with banks and building societies to ensure that the impacts of branch closures on customers are properly considered. Where firms fall short, the FCA can and will ask for a closure to be paused or for other options to be put in place. Some banks also provide pop-up services, with a community banker visiting a library or a community centre to offer support where other options are not available. I understand that that has been the case in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross following the announcement of the closure of the Bank of Scotland branch in Golspie, and that Lloyds Banking Group will be providing a pop-up community banking service on a regular basis to support local people with banking services.
For a number of reasons, we are beginning to look at what else the Post Office can do to improve its banking offer, and I hope to say a little more about that in a moment. When the local high street bank closes, the alternative option for accessing everyday banking services in person is the post office. As our economy has modernised and evolved, so too have our local post offices. Today, they are much more than just a place to send letters and parcels. They increasingly act as basic high street banks, but also as access points for some Government services and, in many places, as community hubs for an array of different activities, generating tremendous social capital in our communities. So it is right that the Government hold the Post Office to account to ensure there is enough provision across the country. We protect the post office network by setting minimum access criteria. At all times, we want 99% of the UK population to live within three miles of a post office and 90% to live within one mile.
Edward Morello
The Minister seems to be outlining very succinctly the failure of the banks to provide a service and the importance of post offices in providing services. I am struggling to understand why the Government are punishing the Post Office with national insurance contribution rises while maintaining the Tory tax cuts for the banks, so will the Minister explain why we are rewarding the people who are failing us and punishing those who will now provide this service to us?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government had a very difficult fiscal inheritance and had to make some very tough choices in the Budget back in October.
We continue to provide a subsidy to the Post Office of some £50 million to ensure that the loss-making parts of the network can be maintained. Indeed, just before Christmas we provided a further £37.5 million to support the Post Office network this year. We are working with the senior leadership team at the Post Office on future opportunities, beginning with banking, so that the company can increase its product offers and commercial revenue while reducing its costs, as well as improving the service to all our constituents.
I heard the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, whose constituency includes Stornoway, about the future of the directly managed post office in his constituency. No decisions have been made on the future of all the directly managed branches, but I know he will continue to campaign on the issue.
We want our post offices to form part of healthy, bustling high streets. Like the post office itself, our high streets have had to adapt quickly to the post-covid economy. High streets have faced more than their fair share of challenges in recent years, in terms of vacancies opening up—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket referred to. That is why in December we brought forward new powers for councils, which can now force landlords to rent out unsightly, vacant, boarded-up properties via high street rental auctions. The new regulations will make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable, giving local businesses and community groups a right to rent valuable space on their local high street. I welcome the fact that Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield are already working with us as early adopters to help to learn how the new power can be used to make a difference.
We have also announced our intention to introduce a new community right to buy, empowering residents to address decline and protect valuable spaces such as pubs, theatres and cinemas, and thereby keeping those assets in the hands of the local community. We are investing in further initiatives to boost town and city centres, including by maintaining the high street accelerators that bring together the local community, businesses and property owners to work in partnership with their council to regenerate and revive local high streets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe referred to our work to improve and reform the business rates system. That was a key manifesto pledge that we are beginning to deliver on, with permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including those on the high street, from 2026-27. We have published a discussion paper to explore what else we can do in this space.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk referred to issues to do with digital connectivity. He will be pleased that we are committing over £500 million next year to deliver Project Gigabit and the shared rural network to roll out broadband and 4G connectivity, which will support growth in rural areas and beyond.
Digital connectivity is one consideration for rural communities but, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, physical connectivity is another. For people in far-flung communities, especially those without a car or family living nearby, getting to the high street can be extremely difficult. We recognise that challenge and are responding in turn with more than £650 million for local transport outside city regions in 2025-26. The Department for Transport will say more about how that funding will be used shortly.
We are also providing more than £1 billion of funding to support and improve local bus services and keep fares affordable wherever we can. In December we introduced the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill that will put control over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders right across England. It is intended to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of the communities that rely on them.
I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and all Members who participated in this debate for their contributions. High streets are the beating heart of all our communities. The services they provide are essential for the people and businesses they serve. As a Minister with a key interest in this area, I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members to help to improve local high street services in their communities.
Jamie Stone
Briefly, I want to say three thank yous. The first is to Susie Babington, who researched my contribution this morning; I am very grateful. We rely on our excellent members of staff.
I thank all Members for their excellent contributions; I am very grateful indeed. The concept of having a pint of beer while having my blood pressure checked is an interesting and novel one.
Finally, I thank the Minister for what he said about the Wick hub. It is desperately important to me and means a great deal to my constituents. We Scots are reckoned to be a wee bit tight with our money, but if His Majesty’s Government choose to send the Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Scotland up to open the Wick hub, I might even dip into my pocket and buy a large glass of Old Pulteney in Wick’s excellent Mackays hotel.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the closure of high street services in rural areas.
Maternal Mental Health
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
About 10 Members have indicated that they wish to speak or intervene, which is unusual in a 30-minute debate. To make a speech in this debate, a Back Bencher must have the leave of the Member in charge, Ms Kyrke-Smith, and of the Minister. Obviously, there also needs to be time enough. If you wish to make a speech as opposed to intervening and have secured the necessary permissions, please stand as usual when the Member in charge has finished moving the motion and remain on your feet while I assess demand and the need for a time limit. I am expecting that we will need a two-minute limit. I request that other Members seek to intervene very, very briefly and only during the speeches of the Member in charge and the Minister. I will call the Minister to reply at 11.20 am.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maternal mental health.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am so glad to have secured this debate on maternal mental health, which I know really matters to people in my constituency and across the country, yet it is still too easily overlooked. For me, it is also very personal. In 2021, I lost one of my best and most brilliant friends, Sophie, to suicide. She left behind her wonderful husband and three little girls, aged six, three and just 10 weeks at the time. Her death was an awful shock to us all, and I will never forget the moment I received the message from her husband, which said:
“I do not know how to say this and I cannot believe I am writing this, but Sophie died this morning.”
It was still the covid pandemic at the time. Sophie was very isolated, recovering from a C-section, staying at home, trying to protect herself and her baby from covid, and not wanting visitors, but we were in regular touch on WhatsApp, helping each other to navigate life with a little baby and two older siblings. Sophie was getting more and more concerned about her baby’s feeding, and it was causing her to suffer from increasingly bad insomnia. She took herself to A&E with concerns about the baby’s milk intake, which I suspect were more a reflection of her own anxiety than the baby’s feeding, and she spent a night there before being discharged. I do not know whether they asked her about her own mental health. What I do know is that the next day her messages were increasingly distressed, and two days later she took her own life.
Unfortunately, what Sophie went through is not uncommon. At least one in five people who give birth experience a mental health problem during pregnancy or after birth. In fact, while we hear a fair amount about physical conditions such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia, it is mental ill health that is the most common complication of pregnancy in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The fact that there are so many Members present is an indication of the importance of this subject. Does the hon. Lady agree that support is an essential component of maternal health and that, for those families who do not have extended support, charities such as Home-Start in my constituency, which have volunteers to go to help, are essential and should be more widely funded to help more young mothers who feel they are drowning to get a lifeline back to the surface?
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree with the hon. Member; that support is needed, and I will come on to that.
The causes of these mental health challenges are really varied. Some people will have past experiences of mental health problems or difficult childhood experiences. Some will struggle after a traumatic birth. Some will be experiencing stressful living conditions. Some evidence suggests there are biological or hormonal factors, and some people are at higher risk than others: young mums face particular risks, with post-natal depression up to twice as prevalent in teenage mothers compared with those aged 20 or over, and data suggests that post-natal depression and anxiety are 13% higher in black and other ethnic minority mothers than in white mothers.
People’s experiences of mental health are also really varied, ranging from mild to moderate conditions such as low self-esteem, anxiety and depression to more serious conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder and post-partum psychosis. While most people find a way through, perinatal mental health can be incredibly serious, as it was for Sophie.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this very important issue to the House. With regard to perinatal support, does she agree that it is very important we have those professional teams in place, and that we get the additional value that comes from a physical mother and baby unit, where specialist support can be given to not just the mother and child but the family as well?
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree: mother and baby units are vital.
For women in the period from six weeks after giving birth to one year after giving birth, the leading cause of death is suicide. While I want to speak more widely today, I want us to be very conscious of that extreme end of the risks that women face. Despite the potential seriousness, the stigma around these problems is huge. Some 70% of women will hide or underplay maternal mental health difficulties, and in turn, they will never get the support they need.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bravely sharing the devastating story of her friend. I also have a wonderful friend, Sarah, whose daughter was a month old when the covid lockdown hit. She was so worried about breaking lockdown rules that she did not lean on friends and family and ended up having a mental breakdown. Does my hon. Friend agree that maternal mental health should be a high priority in any future emergency planning?
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I absolutely do, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of my hon. Friend’s friend.
What are the consequences of all this? The human suffering is immense, but maternal mental health has economic consequences and costs, too—an estimated £8.1 billion each year in the UK, according to research from the London School of Economics, and nearly three quarters of that cost relates to adverse impacts on the child rather than the mother.
I want to suggest four ways in which maternal mental health support can be improved, and I will be as brief as I can. The first is improving specialist perinatal mental health services. The second is better embedding mental health support in routine maternity care. The third is improving community support, and the fourth is education and awareness raising.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for the powerful speech she is making, and I am so sorry to hear about her friend. Does she agree that we also need specialist support for those experiencing post-adoptive depression? Although they have not gone through the same physical process as birth parents, it can be equally devastating.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
Absolutely—that is one way in which people can experience severe mental health challenges and consequences, and it needs to be considered. I also want to acknowledge that new dads and partners experience mental health challenges too, but given our limited time, I am focusing today on maternal mental health.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that stigma around mental health, particularly maternal mental health, can be used by abusers as a barrier to women getting help? Domestic violence during the perinatal period and the effects on mental health require widespread attention, so that survivors can feel comfortable and safe when asking for support.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I agree; we need to shed more light on this, precisely for that and other reasons.
I will touch briefly on my first recommendation, which is to ensure that specialist perinatal mental health services are protected. In the last 10 years, there have been significant steps forward. Mother and baby units in particular can be an important part of someone’s treatment and recovery, as well as having significant benefits for the parent-infant relationship.
Tragically, there are still too many stories of women not being able to access those units. They are perhaps too far away from where a woman lives, or there is not a bed available, or the need for a mother to get that care has not been identified properly. We are still seeing mothers with newborns being put into adult psychiatric units and separated from their babies, despite the national guidance saying that mother and baby units are best practice. Continued support for these services is crucial, both in mother and baby units and in the community, and that must include research to develop the best interventions and robust evaluations of the care provided.
The Mental Health Bill is a sorely needed piece of legislation, and I really welcome it, but I wonder whether it might include a provision to ensure that all women who have given birth within the 12 months prior to admission to a psychiatric unit are given the option of being admitted to a ward where they can remain with their baby. That could help to prevent women from falling through the cracks in the system, as they do currently.
Secondly, I turn to routine maternity care, which is where the mental health support for the vast majority of women can and should sit. Again, we have seen progress, with some vital new services in place, including care for women experiencing baby loss, severe fear of childbirth, birth trauma and loss of custody at birth.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for calling this debate, which is clearly so important to her. In my constituency there is an excellent charity called HeartTalks that works with mothers who have experienced baby loss. Would she agree that post-partum check-ups are really important for all women, but particularly those who have suffered baby loss, regardless of the trimester it occurred in?
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I absolutely agree. A recent report from the Maternal Mental Health Alliance highlighted huge variation in the support services available locally, with confusing referral pathways, inequitable referral criteria and long waiting lists—some women have to wait six months for an assessment and up to a year for treatment. Too often, as I have noted, women are cared for unequally. Those who have existing disadvantages experience stubbornly poorer outcomes.
We need better integration of mental health into all routine contacts during pregnancy and after birth for all women who need it. During that period, women have an average of at least 16 routine contacts with health professionals, including GPs, midwives and others, and they are an ideal opportunity to ensure that women are routinely and compassionately asked about their mental health. I wonder if any healthcare professionals asked Sophie not just how the baby was but how she was. I wonder if the discussions about her baby’s feeding were had in a way that sought to reduce her anxiety. I wonder if she was given less attention because this was her third child, and her earlier experiences had been smoother—but I will never know.
In the same way that many physical health complications are dealt with by multidisciplinary maternity services, the same should be true for mental health care. That means midwives, health visitors and others being trained to ask the right questions and assess the risks, and then psychological therapists, equivalent to those employed in talking therapies, integrated into maternity teams to support women’s care where necessary. They would understand the specific needs and risks of the perinatal period, and be able to intervene quickly where that is needed.
Thirdly, I want to acknowledge the importance of community support for pregnant and new mums, as we have heard from other Members, and I recommend its expansion. There are fantastic voluntary groups providing some support, and in some places family support hubs are up and running, but often the postcode lottery kicks in again. We are a long way from the broader and more reliable provision that was established under the last Labour Government—notably the Sure Start model, which all the long-term evidence shows was so effective. As part of our national health mission to shift care from hospital to the community, we need to rebuild those community services, including for pregnant and new mums. We need them to be across the country and widely accessible, with clear maternal mental health guidance embedded in them.
Finally, it is incumbent on all of us to keep building a society where everyone understands the mental health challenges in the perinatal period, including the suicide risk in the most serious cases. Crucially, we all need to learn to be good allies to people who are struggling. I think about that a lot in relation to Sophie. When Sophie sent me messages saying, “Feeling desperate today”, and,
“I’m just not sure I have it in me to keep going”,
did I do enough? Did I worry about her anxiety? Yes. Did I worry about her being depressed? Yes. Did I worry about suicidal thoughts? Honestly, yes. But did I think she might take her own life? No. I have struggled with the guilt that I did not somehow do something to stop it, but I also recognise how ignorant I was and how hard this is.
I have had good conversations with Sophie’s dad about what needs to change. He is part of a group called Facing the Future—a support group for people who have lost family to suicide. One of his group members said:
“I think what I’d like to see is a more proactive and visible campaign to target those who are at risk. Not just for those at risk, but for their families/friends/carers/loved-ones. Let people know that it’s okay not to be okay...Give people the knowledge and confidence to ask someone they are concerned about how they are feeling, to know what to look for and ask, and to know where to go for help.”
That is absolutely right. There are some fantastic charities and campaigns out there. I know the Government are listening; I am particularly pleased that not just mental health, but suicide prevention are woven into our health mission, where moving from treatment to prevention is such an important focus more broadly. But there is more to do.
I conclude by saying that I do not want Sophie’s life to be defined by her death. I want it to be defined by her first-class Cambridge degree, her talents as a writer and actress, her Foreign Office career, her friendships, her playful sense of humour, and the beautiful family that she began to raise. I talk about her death because I hope her experience can be a catalyst for change.
While her story—every story like hers—and the wider statistics can seem bleak, the real story here is one of hope and potential. With the right support in place at this crucial and pressured time in women’s lives, they do surmount great mental health challenges and recover, often quickly and well—and their babies get off to a good start in life. The Government have embarked on transformative work to improve the country’s health, and better maternal mental health outcomes must be one test of our success.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Members should stand if they wish to speak. You have a very short amount of time.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I commend the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing this hugely important debate and speaking so eloquently about her friend. As someone who has lost a close friend to suicide, I completely agree that they are not defined by their death, but by the impact they had during their life and the impact they had on other people.
Suicide is the leading cause of death among women in the six weeks to 12 months after giving birth, and maternal mental health in Winchester and across the UK is in crisis. As the Lib Dem spokesperson for mental health, I am hearing more and more stories about this from individual women. Every year, 600,000 women give birth, and one in five of those women will experience a perinatal mental health condition. This is a completely neglected mental health crisis, on an extremely large scale.
Polling from as recently as December 2024, commissioned by the campaign Delivering Better, representatives of which I am pleased are in the Public Gallery today, found that seven out of 10 women who have a negative birthing experience say that it has had a long-term impact on their mental health. A recurring theme is that women are not being listened to—that has been a theme in essentially every major maternity inquiry. Women are not listened to when they raise concerns pre, during and post labour, not listened to when they raise complaints with trusts about their care, and not listened to by successive Governments who have failed to treat this issue with the seriousness it demands. If this crisis is to be meaningfully addressed, far greater emphasis needs to be placed on the voices and experience of women and birthing people.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing the debate. Does the hon. Member agree that, given the scale of the problem and the barriers to new parents and new mothers asking for help, it is important that this Government focus on pre-emptive support, in case people are struggling with their mental health? We should assume that having a child will affect women’s mental health, and that assumption would force the Government to take a proactive approach to supporting women in that time.
Dr Chambers
I completely agree with the hon. Member and thank her for her important intervention. For years, we have been calling for better community healthcare. We know the demographics who are at high risk of mental health issues: not only women who are within a year of giving birth, but a whole load of other people, such as military veterans and farmers. Those groups of people need proactive help before they reach crisis point. It is more cost-effective to treat them earlier, rather than to pick up the pieces once they are in a crisis.
The Government recently announced that they will drop women’s health targets to avoid overspending, but it is clear that women’s health, including maternity care, has been deprioritised for too long. I urge them to reconsider.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing the debate—I am so sorry about her friend Sophie.
Maternity services in this country are in a dire state. In Nottinghamshire, this has been exacerbated by the fact that we have had the largest maternity scandal in NHS history. We have seen at first hand how women have suffered from some of the worst care and treatment imaginable; in many, if not most, cases they were left with little or no support and support was lacking or sparse.
I had a traumatic pregnancy and a traumatic birth. My son was born in the first week of the first lockdown. Despite having an emergency C-section due to not having been listened to, I was sent home in less than 24 hours. I was left alone and abandoned by the health services. The mental health situation that I faced does not go away—it never leaves you—but I am one of the lucky ones.
I do not wish to say much more, other than that maternal mental health provision will be fixed only when we fix our maternity services, and our maternity services start by supporting women before they are even pregnant. To get to the point where women do not go home feeling that they have done something wrong, that their situation is all their fault, and that they are useless and not capable of being a mother, we have to fix our system for how we care for women and babies.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing this crucial debate, and I am truly sorry to hear of her loss.
For too long, mothers’ mental health has been dismissed. Women raising concerns are belittled and told they have “baby blues” when they are battling post-natal depression or even PTSD. This is personal for me. After my son’s birth I requested a debrief—a simple conversation to process my own experience. My son turns three this year and I am still waiting. For doctors and midwives, it might be their thousandth birth, but for the mother it can be traumatic, particularly if it is her first.
Reports by the Care Quality Commission show that one in three mothers are denied pain relief, with some told to “suck it up” when they ask for help. That is misogyny, not medicine. As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee I am proud to have played a part in highlighting some of the medical misogyny that women experience with the publication of our most recent report.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury for referring to post-partum psychosis, a severe but treatable illness that affects over 1,200 mothers a year. I am also proud that Amy Rothwell of Bolton Maternity Voices Partnership is working with Royal Bolton hospital to ensure that patient feedback drives real improvements. I urge the Minister to make maternal mental health in Bolton and around the country a priority. No mother should feel ignored or alone, and we really need urgent change.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss.
I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) for securing this debate, for raising a number of important issues and for making such a powerful and moving contribution. I was very saddened to hear of the utterly heartbreaking circumstances of her friend’s passing. I offer my sincere condolences to her and to Sophie’s family and loved ones. I am also thankful to all Members for their contributions, the sheer number of which, in such a short Westminster Hall debate, illustrates the importance of this issue.
The Government take this matter extremely seriously, which is why are placing a renewed focus on mental health and suicide prevention, including for women during the perinatal period. The figures show that the challenges are sobering, and many of the issues raised today are symptomatic of an NHS that is simply not addressing needs. Perinatal mental illness affects over a quarter of new and expectant mothers and covers a wide range of conditions. Research shows that in the UK around one in three women experience traumatic births, and one in 20 women every year develop post-traumatic stress disorder after giving birth. Between 2021 and 2023, 26 women died from mental health-related causes within the six weeks following pregnancy. Over a third of maternal deaths occurring between six weeks and one year after the end of pregnancy are from suicide, drugs, alcohol or other mental health-related causes. It is unacceptable that so many women are not receiving the maternal mental health care they need, and we are determined to change that.
That is why NHS England’s three-year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services commits to offering all women a personalised care and support plan, considering physical health, mental health and social complexities, with an updated risk assessment at every contact. Ten years ago, fewer than 15% of localities provided specialist perinatal mental health services for women with complex or severe conditions at the full level recommended in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance, and more than 40% provided no service at all. Today, specialist perinatal mental health services are available in all 42 integrated care systems across England. Those services are available for women with or at risk of mental health conditions who are planning a pregnancy, are pregnant or have a baby up to two years old. That care includes increased access to evidence-based psychological therapies.
A record 62,723 women were reported to have accessed community perinatal mental health services and maternal mental health services in the 12 months to the end of November 2024. Women can be referred to services by any healthcare professional, including midwives, health visitors, GPs, hospital-based teams, mental health services and social workers. Self-referrals are accepted by some services. GPs also now deliver six to eight-week post-natal consultations that include a focus on perinatal mental health.
The services are provided by multidisciplinary teams to cover every aspect of women’s health, often including a psychiatrist, nurses, mental health social workers, occupational health workers, health visitors, peer support workers and nursery nurses. The specialist perinatal mental health community workforce has almost doubled in the last five years. Furthermore, 165 mother and baby unit beds have been commissioned, 153 of which are currently operational. Mother and baby units provide in-patient care to women who experience severe mental health difficulties during and after pregnancy.
When a mother goes through the heartbreak of losing her baby, we must do everything we can to support her through bereavement. Many trusts have specialist bereavement midwives who are trained to care for and support parents and families who have suffered the loss of their baby. All trusts in England are signed up to the national bereavement care pathway, which covers a range of circumstances of baby loss, with the aim of offering every bereaved parent the high-quality, safe and sensitive care that they deserve. In October, the Government extended the baby loss certificate service to help mums and dads who go through the nightmare of a pregnancy loss.
In addition, health visiting teams are well placed to provide mental health support to new parents. They can offer assessment at each contact, appropriate interventions and referrals when necessary. Some areas have health visitors who specialise in perinatal mental health to strengthen provision for families who need it.
However, service provision can and must be made stronger. That is why we are working with partners to improve the current health visiting services, including by looking at how we can best improve support for parental mental health, and by ensuring that it is sustainable for an overstretched workforce.
This Government want every child to have the very best start in life. Last month, we announced £126 million of funding until 2026 through the family hubs and Start for Life programme. That will provide a raft of support for families with babies, from pregnancy up to the age of two. It includes funding for bespoke support for parents and carers with perinatal mental health difficulties, and for parents-infant relationships.
This Government are committed to tackling suicide, which is one of the biggest killers in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury makes a very good point about building awareness and good allyship in order to reduce suicide risk. The suicide prevention strategy targets pregnant women and new mothers as a priority group for additional support, so that fewer loved ones will go through the heartbreak of losing a friend or relative to suicide. More than 100 measures have been outlined in the strategy, aimed at saving lives, providing early intervention and supporting anyone going through the trauma of a crisis.
The Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Health and Wellbeing Alliance, managed by the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency, has sponsored a project, led by the Tommy’s and Sands Maternity Consortium, which explores experiences of perinatal suicide and self-harm and their risk factors. We have allocated funding to 79 organisations up and down the country from our £10 million suicide prevention fund over the two years to March 2025. Those organisations, many of which are grassroots and community-led, are delivering a broad and diverse range of activity that will prevent suicide and help save lives.
I have taken careful note of the four proposals that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury set out clearly in her speech, and I will work with my officials to give them the detailed consideration that they deserve. Although it takes huge courage to speak out about such painful matters in public, I have always thought that that is a vital part of our public discourse, which is enriched when we bring our experiences to these debates. I again pay tribute to my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Gambling Harms
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gambling harms.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner—your premier chairmanship, I might add.
I want to begin this debate by sharing a heartbreaking story about a young man, who I will call Ben. Tragically, last year, Ben took his own life at the age of just 19. He was addicted to gambling. In the two months leading up to his tragic suicide, he received 63 promotional emails from a single gambling company—63 emails, despite his addiction, relentlessly encouraging him to gamble. Despite his attempts to manage his gambling, Ben could not avoid being drawn back in by these persistent efforts. He ultimately felt that there was no way out.
Ben’s story is not an anomaly. In fact, around 40% of gamblers who seek treatment in the UK have considered suicide. In 2023 the Government’s own national suicide prevention strategy cited gambling as one of the six main factors linked to suicide in the UK. Ben’s story is one example of how gambling addiction can lead to a tragic end, but Ben represents just one of the approximately 400 people across the UK who lose their lives to gambling each year.
Last week I had the deeply moving experience of meeting families who have lost children to such suicides. Their grief and pain are unimaginable, and their stories underscore the urgent need for further measures to address the crisis. During the meeting I spoke to Liz. Liz and Charles Ritchie lost their son Jack in November 2017. Jack was aged just 24. He had started gambling when he was 17. It was fixed-odds betting terminals that got him into gambling. These terminals are extremely addictive, and Jack found it increasingly difficult to stop. He reached out to his parents, and they helped him to exclude himself from the local bookmakers, but he was then drawn into gambling online. He again looked for help, this time installing blocking software on his computer.
Over the years, Jack managed to stop gambling for long periods of time, but the ubiquity of gambling marketing during his time at university made it impossible for him to escape. In 2017 Jack was lured back into gambling and relapsed for the last time. At Jack’s inquest, which found that gambling had led to his death, the coroner highlighted the inadequacy of gambling regulation and the poor state of information and treatment. Jack’s parents have dedicated their lives to raising awareness of gambling disorders, and his dad Charles is in the Gallery for this debate.
Every year hundreds of people across the UK end their own lives because of gambling, but there are many whose lives are hurt in other ways—through mental ill health, soaring debts, family break-ups and more.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with my perspective as a public health doctor that there is a need for population-level interventions? There is ample evidence of a need for stronger policy and regulatory controls that protect public health and wellbeing and prevent harm. Gambling is not simply a cultural pastime for people or a leisure facility; it is an addiction and it needs to be addressed appropriately.
Alex Ballinger
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that a population approach is appropriate in this case, particularly considering the number of people that are harmed and the NHS’s expertise in this area.
As a country we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling. The most recent statistics from the Gambling Commission show that the scale of harm in the UK is huge, with 2.5% of adults—well over a million people—experiencing the most severe gambling harms. The Royal College of Psychiatrists tells me that it has seen a threefold increase in those referred for gambling treatment since people moved online during the pandemic. The Dudley-based charity Gordon Moody, which provides gambling treatment centres across the west midlands, tells me that it has seen an increase in referrals, especially among younger people. Last year it received 12,000 applications for its six-week treatment programme.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. According to GambleAware, around one in eight people in my Shipley constituency engage in gambling behaviour that is deemed to be harmful. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), I see gambling as an addiction and a public health issue. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to introduce the statutory levy on gambling and to put that £50 million into NHS services. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that there are NHS services in every part of the country to support those suffering from gambling addiction?
Alex Ballinger
I agree with my hon. Friend and will come on to the statutory levy in a moment. It is particularly important that that fund is used not just for treatment, but for prevention; I will talk a little bit about that as I get through my speech. Last year, the Gordon Moody charity received 12,000 applications for its six-week programme. That clear spike in gambling harm goes hand in hand with the increase in online gambling.
As people turned to online gambling during the pandemic, they were often engaged in the most harmful forms of gambling. Online slots, for example, have all the characteristics associated with the most problematic types of gambling: the high speed of play, making it easier to quickly and repeatedly receive the psychological hit and potentially rack up huge debts; the ease of availability, allowing people 24/7 access from home through their smartphone, where they are potentially at their most vulnerable, and relentless marketing, with advertising ever present on social media and videogames, as well as in offers through email.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is speaking very movingly about these tragic cases. I was also at the Gambling with Lives annual forum, and I met Lesley Wade, who tragically lost her son Aaron to gambling-related harm. He was 30, with a bright future ahead of him. His brother lives in my constituency. This insidious industry constantly offered Aaron perks and freebies, such as so-called VIP clubs, free tickets to football matches and hospitality. These companies are like parasites preying on people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast pay packets of the CEOs of some of the companies in this pernicious industry are not worth a single life, and that we must do all we can to reduce the number of lives lost?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Can I remind Members that interventions must be short.
Alex Ballinger
I agree with my hon. Friend that gambling companies are often preying on the most vulnerable in our society; those with the least and the most to lose. I wholeheartedly agree that stronger regulation is needed, and I will talk about that somewhat as I go.
Children and young people are particularly at risk. Just last week, The i Paper newspaper reported that children playing free mobile phone games are being targeted with gambling advertisements. Such adverts are priming children to gamble as soon as they are old enough to do so. A critical part of tackling gambling harms has to be stronger regulations on marketing, advertising and sponsorship.
Both Ben and Jack were drawn back into gambling by the constant offers and inducements to gamble that were seen everywhere. We cannot now watch a football match without being bombarded by gambling adverts. At the opening weekend of the premier league this season, there were 29,000 gambling messages—a 165% increase on the year before. How is that acceptable in a sport that so many children enjoy?
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are falling behind other countries with evidence of less harm? Countries including Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Spain have chosen almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. Does he agree that we need stronger controls to protect people, especially children, from harmful gambling advertising?
Alex Ballinger
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree. Many European countries, as well as Australia, have put forward much stronger restrictions on gambling advertising, and it is very important for the protection of our children that we follow suit.
It is also the same on social media: on X—formerly known as Twitter—alone, there are now 1 million gambling adverts every year. The industry is clearly doubling down on this approach as it spends £1.5 billion a year on gambling advertising in the UK. While the gambling industry sometimes attempts to frame advertising and marketing as having no connection to harm, there is ample evidence that the marketing increases the use of the most harmful forms of gambling. Online incentivisation schemes, including VIP schemes, bonuses and free spins, are evidence that gambling companies think marketing gets people to gamble in their most profitable and harmful sectors.
Advertising and the exposure to gambling cues are the No. 1 issue for patients who access NHS gambling services, and 87% of people with a gambling disorder said that marketing and advertising prompted them to gamble when they otherwise were not going to. I spoke earlier of Ben, who was contacted more than once a day in the months leading up to his death. That level of contact and pressure must be addressed; it is simply unethical and puts gambling profits above the lives of our young people.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
I also had a deeply moving meeting last week with a constituent whose son, aged just 19, had tragically taken his own life, having become addicted to online gambling after six months of the same sort of advertising pressure my hon. Friend described. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for all parts of Government to acknowledge that problem gambling has become a public health emergency, that it is not enough for gambling to be left to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport alone to regulate and that it is time to stop listening to gambling operators’ siren voices?
Alex Ballinger
I agree that the time to act is now—we need stronger regulations and stronger presence of the health system in our response.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. One death is one too many. However, 22.5 million people in this country gamble and enjoy betting safely without any problems, and there are 42,000 employed in betting shops on our hard-pressed high streets. Is it not important that we have regulation that is proportionate in the impact it has on this industry, which is so important to the United Kingdom?
Alex Ballinger
I agree that balance is important, but the situations that hon. Members have described in this debate show that balance is not there at the moment. No one is suggesting banning traditional forms of gambling such as bookmakers, horseracing, lotteries and so on. However, pernicious advertising and harmful online gambling need to be properly regulated, and that is not happening at the moment.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for arriving a little late to his opening remarks. The point is that the occasional flutter on the Grand National or a game of bingo, such as my mother played, is a world away from the gambling that he describes. A statutory levy has been announced; will he ask the Minister perhaps to talk about how it will operate? It must not be controlled by the very people who are doing the harm.
Alex Ballinger
I am delighted that the right hon. Member raises this important point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I will come on to the levy in a moment.
The public, too, are concerned about gambling advertising, with opinion polls consistently showing most people in the UK want a clampdown. As we have heard, we fall well behind other countries, with the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all having almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. We can clearly see that the boom in online gambling and huge rise in advertising and marketing is leading to an increase in gambling harms.
That leads me on to the legislation, which is in urgent need of an update. The last time primary gambling legislation was put forward was the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission, with the primary aims of preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, ensuring that it was conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling companies. The Act was delivered before the rise of online gambling and before smartphones even existed; it is an analogue Act in a digital age and has long been in need of an update.
However, I was pleased to see the statutory levy introduced last week by the Government, which will generate £100 million from gambling operators to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms —without a doubt, an important step in ensuring that the industry begins to pay for the harm it causes. While the changes to the levy are welcome, however, we lack clarity on where the money raised through the levy will go on prevention. It is important that prevention commissioning is undertaken independently of the gambling industry. We cannot expect people to access services commissioned by the industry that they have been harmed or exploited by.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has just spoken about the levy, which is a big step forward. Does he agree that prevention needs to focus on people who are at immediate risk but also, more widely, on our education system and services for young people?
Alex Ballinger
Yes, I agree that it is important that prevention should work across the piece, but I think it is more important to reduce the ubiquity of advertising that our young people are exposed to. They do not need to learn too young about gambling, and prevention should take that into account.
As I said, the changes to the levy are welcome, but we lack clarity on where the money that is raised will go with regard to prevention. It is important that the prevention commissioner be from the Department of Health and Social Care, given the synergy between the role and the Department’s current expertise in the delivery of similar services.
The introduction of the levy is a good first step, but it is just that—a first step. Two decades on from the Gambling Act, further action is needed to protect individuals and families from harm. I am thinking of the families of Ben and Jack and the thousands of others who have lost someone to gambling-related suicide, as well as the more than 1 million people who are experiencing gambling harms right now.
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, working with Members from both sides of the House to minimise the harms from gambling—I am pleased to see so many of them present. I will highlight to the Minister some of the proposals on which the group has been working.
I ask the Minister to continue to monitor and regularly review the statutory levy on gambling operators. As I mentioned, it is important that the levy should commission preventive work independent of the gambling industry. I ask that mandatory affordability checks be implemented, which would help to prevent individuals from gambling beyond their means by identifying those at risk of financial harm and providing timely interventions.
I ask the Minister to commit to properly investigating every gambling-related suicide. Families such as Ben’s and Jack’s deserve each of these tragedies to be fully examined to understand the underlying causes and to develop better strategies for prevention. I would encourage the introduction of a gambling ombudsman to deal with disputes and provide appropriate redress where a customer suffered harm due to the operator’s social responsibility failure.
I would strongly push for greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and inducements. We need to stop the practices that encourage children to gamble and that create unavoidable risks for the more than 1 million adults who are already suffering harms from gambling. Many of these challenges can be addressed by reviewing the 2005 Act in the light of the huge technological developments that have happened over the last two decades. That would allow us to follow through on the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to reduce gambling harms.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for organising this much-needed debate; I will declare a conflict of interest in that my partner runs the licensing team for a local authority in London. Is my hon. Friend aware of the 2021 University of Bristol study that found that betting shops are 10 times more likely to be in deprived towns than in affluent areas? It also found that although only 10% of food stores are located in the poorest areas, those places are home to 34% of amusement arcades, 30% of bingo venues and 29% of adult gaming centres. Will he join me in asking the Minister to take steps to give more powers to stop the proliferation of such—
Alex Ballinger
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I support her call. It is very concerning that those sites are concentrated around the most deprived areas in our society—arguably, the areas that need greater investment rather than money being extracted from their communities.
The 2005 Act is an analogue law in a digital age. The harms from online gambling have accelerated since covid, and it is vital that the Government act now to protect gamblers from harm. The stories of Ben and Jack are a stark reminder of the urgent need for comprehensive gambling reform. We cannot wait any longer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate. I am imposing an informal time limit of two and a half minutes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
Mr Turner, it is, as ever, a pleasure to see you in one of these debates, even if you are not speaking on the subject. It is great to have you in the Chair.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on obtaining this debate. It is great to see so many Government Members taking part; there have been times previously when it was a lonely business for Members on both sides of the House to push this issue. The APPG continues to do its work because, as the hon. Member for Halesowen will know as a member of the group, there is a continuing demand to bring this industry under better control.
It is massively well understood that the harms this industry is capable of need to be checked. It started when we campaigned to get the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals reduced to £2. That was attacked, but we got it through, and it has led to a dramatic improvement in behaviour in betting shops and among those who use those machines after having far too much to drink in the evening.
The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) was right to say that the number of betting shops that proliferate around housing estates is something to be seen, and it is because those companies want to get people who have picked up their benefits or their wage packet en route home. Some of them never make it home because they end up in the betting shop. Of course, that makes poverty even worse, because the families do not get the money, and it is wasted. That is a real issue.
I will not repeat all the points that the hon. Member for Halesowen made, but he is right that the original legislation is completely out of date, because it was made for an analogue world when it was either the betting shops or nothing at all. Gambling has now proliferated in cyber-space.
During lockdown, there were huge problems with gambling harms. People were sitting in their rooms for hours on end, spending money they did not have and ending up in massive debt. Suicides took place. The hon. Member mentioned his constituent, and my heart grieves for the family. I have met far too many families who have been in that position. If anybody disagrees with us about this subject, they should go and meet those who have lost their sons and daughters to the terrible scourge of gambling online late at night—on the slots, for the most part.
The argument is put to us endlessly: “This will close down horseracing. This will close down sport.” This work has nothing to do with that, because betting on a horserace is not the same as someone sitting in their room late at night on a slot, constantly pounded by the desire to bet more, bet faster, immediately. It will never damage horseracing—its purpose is not to damage sport—but some gambling companies are now pursuing children through various algorithms used in online games, and that has to be stopped.
Although the online stake limit has been reduced to £5, we think that is too high. The limit in betting shops has been reduced to £2, so why not have both at the same level? It seems a peculiar last-minute cop-out to the gambling industry to keep it at £5. It should be brought into line with the betting limits on fixed-odds betting terminals—that would make complete sense. I ask the Minister to speak to her colleagues and to those in the Treasury, whose hand is always seen in this debate because they are worried about the revenues. There are revenues and then there are revenues, and this particular set of revenues needs to be received with a very careful eye.
I welcome the introduction of the levy, which we campaigned for, and congratulate the Government on bringing it in, because it is vital. It does not just go to charities for their work in supporting those who have suffered as a result of gambling; vitally, it also goes into research so that we can look at what is happening. This is a fast-moving area online, and with the amount of money being spent by gambling companies, it is wholly feasible that they will find ways around what we are trying to do and use it in a pernicious way to increase their profits.
I have nothing against gambling companies. In a free world, they are more than welcome to give access to people who wish to bet on different things, but the real problem lies in the lack of any sense of remorse shown in conversations we have had with the gambling industry. The simple fact is that they make money when those who gamble lose theirs.
One of the areas we noted was those companies’ pursuit of people who have got into the habit of losing sums of money. Although there was great talk about how they should step back, and about the ways in which they were going to help them, that was, by and large, not the case. They pursue them right to the bitter end on the basis that that money is going into their profits. When we hear that an individual—who I shall not name —who heads up one particular gambling company was able to give themselves a bonus of £1 billion over three years, we must ask: what is the price of human life? Is it only about profit?
In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen and hon. Members in the Chamber. The sooner we get these measures on the statute book, the better. There is room for improvement in what the Government are proposing, but I wish them well on that, and I will certainly be supporting them.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I now impose a formal time limit of two minutes and 30 seconds.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow two such accomplished speeches. There is real intelligence on both sides of this House in terms of where we need to go now with gambling legislation.
Most Members will know that I have worked over a number of years on the issue of alcohol and drug addiction treatment, and I share similar concerns about addiction in gambling. As you know, Mr Turner, I also have a passion for horseracing, and I will give a bit of context to bring the two together. We can all agree that the incessant advertising of gambling, in particular of online casinos and the most harmful forms of gambling, is destructive. I do not see why we should stand for that any longer.
There is a second levy that is important in this debate. Fixed-odds betting goes back to about the 1960s. Horseracing—which I consider to be a great British sport that I wish to support, and is an industry that employs many people and livelihoods—is reliant on a levy from the bookmakers to the horseracing industry. That levy is applied only to bets that are placed on horseracing.
There is therefore no risk to racing in dealing with the most harmful forms of gambling in this country. In fact, there can be a benefit to the horseracing industry if this House gets the legislation and the regulation right. We can reduce the most harmful forms of gambling and encourage forms such as taking a flutter on a bet or a Yankee on a Saturday—as we have done for many generations in this country.
We can redraw the landscape of betting and gaming in the United Kingdom for the benefit of real-life sports and entertainment, away from the online casinos and the most addictive forms of gambling. Through the levy that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked about, I hope that we can also make sure that more money goes into addiction treatment and support for those who are so tragically harmed and who, in some of the worst cases, lose their lives to this pernicious habit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I wish you well in chairing Westminster Hall, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising the issue.
In the last Parliament, I was a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group for gambling related harm, so there can be no doubt where I stand. I commend the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is not here today, for all her work over the years to address gambling. Those of us who know her—she is still in Parliament, by the way—will know that she has done great work.
The scale of harm in Great Britain is far more concerning than previously thought, with 2.5% of the population, nearly 1.3 million people, experiencing the most severe gambling harms. My comment for the Minister’s ears—and for everyone else; but she will direct it—is to ask whether she would discuss that issue with the Northern Ireland Assembly. The rate of gambling addiction in Northern Ireland is 2.3%, which is above the normal rate in Britain.
Colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly held a debate on this subject at the end of January and they put forward a number of issues. Paul Frew MLA highlighted:
“Some 80% of all gambling marketing activity is now on the internet.”
That is where the grey area is and where we need to address the issue. He further said:
“While online gambling operators licensed by the Gambling Commission can freely advertise in Northern Ireland, because online and broadcast advertising is a reserved matter, our population is afforded no protection by the regulator in GB”.
Will the Minister look at that?
In the last 12 months, 30% of 11 to 16-year-olds in Northern Ireland have gambled in one form or another. It is clear that the measures in place are not protecting our children from harm. The worst time is from midnight to 4 am. That is another issue we need to address.
There is a need for greater regulation on the mainland and in Northern Ireland; we are simply crying out for any updated regulation and legislation to deal with the scourge of gambling. I have young men coming into my office with their mothers owing money left, right and centre to paramilitaries—that is one of our problems back home—and there are nearly always two reasons for that: drugs and gambling. We need to do something, particularly for people in areas of social deprivation who are looking for a way out and taking a chance on gambling, which only digs a deeper hole for them to try to get out of. That has to stop. In this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, let us do the job together.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and give my condolences to the family of Jack, who are here today.
Brent has the second highest concentration of gambling premises in London, and it does not make our high street better; it makes it considerably worse. Gambling facilities are more accessible than supermarkets, banks or schools in my constituency. Some 6.2% of Brent residents are categorised as problem gamblers, more than the national average of just 2.9%. Gambling-related harms in Brent cost an estimated £14.3 million annually. Now, with free wi-fi and often free drinks for young people, betting shops are trying to encourage a younger generation, and I can only see that figure getting worse.
These products are addictive, and we need to call them out. Gambling is more addictive than heroin or tobacco. If this was anything else, we would be saying, “What do we do to change this?” It is bringing such harm to communities. Yes, people have the right to gamble—to have a flutter—but serious harms are being caused.
We need to strengthen the licensing power. We have heard powerfully today that the legislation is not equipped to handle what is going on, both online and on our high streets. I want councils to have more of an opportunity to say no to new gambling establishments; I want my constituents’ voices to be heard when they say no to further gambling establishments. We have two gambling shops with just one other shop in between. How is that necessary?
It is absolutely time for us to say that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to start closing down betting shops and definitely not open new ones, and we also need to strengthen the laws on online gambling.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate.
Tewkesbury is home to the prestigious and internationally famed Cheltenham racecourse, which is one of the largest in the UK. Every year, more than 250,000 people visit the racecourse across four days of racing at Cheltenham festival, and many enjoy betting on the results. A 2023 study conducted by the University of Gloucestershire found that the economic benefit of Cheltenham festival was an estimated £274 million.
I consider myself a horseracing sceptic, but, as the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham racecourse, I must take a nuanced position. That £274 million is an astonishing figure, and I value that contribution. We must also consider the associated financial harms and the mental and physical health impacts of gambling on the UK economy, which cost £1.4 billion per year.
I am also acutely aware that problem gambling is a serious public health issue. I proudly submitted the Liberal Democrats’ contribution to the Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 just last week, supporting financial caps on bets made online. Public Health England reports that approximately 246,000 people are problem gamblers in England alone, and a further 2.2 million people are at risk. Shockingly, it further reports that there are more than 400 gambling-related suicides per year.
My constituents deserve a Member of Parliament who puts their wellbeing ahead of the interests of private betting companies, while recognising the economic and social contribution of the industry. My residents deserve to be protected from exploitation by betting companies, which cannot be trusted, much less expected, to self-regulate. Our residents do not need another round of public consultations; they need action. I want to see significant restrictions on gambling advertising, including but not limited to that which plagues young people’s social media feeds and YouTube videos.
Gambling firms are at pains to present their industry as symbiotic with sport, deliberately placing their adverts around football broadcasts, stadiums and shirts.
Abtisam Mohamed
One particular gambling company says to people that when the fun stops, the betting should stop. Does the hon. Member agree that when the fun stops, it is far too late?
Cameron Thomas
I absolutely agree, but we should not leave it to gambling companies to make that statement. We should instead take action.
Gambling is not symbiotic with sport, and the companies should not be allowed to indoctrinate children, whose parents, like me, just want to introduce them to the beautiful game. We no longer allow fast food companies to align themselves with sport, and we should treat gambling companies in precisely the same way.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. One in 15 residents in Greater Manchester faces gambling harms—that is one and a half times the national average—and recent research reveals that the Wigan borough has the highest referral rate to specialist gambling services in the region.
We have heard the most poignant contributions about how such harms can include financial stress, relationship breakdown, mental health struggles and, tragically, even suicide. The impacts are therefore not limited to the individuals who gamble; for every person at risk, an average of six others are affected—family, friends and colleagues. Although gambling may not always be the sole cause of such harms, it often deepens existing vulnerabilities.
The path to recovery can be long and difficult, but recovery is possible, and that is what I want to focus on. One constituent of mine, David Smith, has a powerful story of his addiction and recovery. For 37 years, David’s life was controlled by gambling. He describes how it ruined his life: it made him a “walking nuisance”—his words—and ultimately led him to “hit rock bottom”. It was the moment that he maxed out five credit cards in one afternoon that led David to bravely seek help from Gamblers Anonymous. Later, he joined GaMHive, an incredible organisation in Greater Manchester founded by individuals who have personal experience of gambling harm. They and their families have been affected by addiction and, through their collective lived experience, they are working to break the stigma.
I do not have time in this short contribution to go through the story of how gambling has affected David’s life. All Members will have heard constituents’ powerful stories. I have seen David bring his audience to tears with the story that he has to tell. That is why these groups are so important. We have heard from other hon. Members that money from the public levy could be used for prevention, which is obviously key, but it could also support groups such as GaMHive.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Turner. It seems funny to call you Mr Turner—we have been friends for so long—but I congratulate you on your elevation to the Panel of Chairs. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this very important debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), I add my condolences to Jack’s family, who are in the Public Gallery.
I come from a bookmaking family: my parents were bookmakers and my grandparents were bookmakers. I have always defended the industry, because I have always believed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), in the horseracing levy—as someone who loves horses, I have always been attracted by the investment in equine science—but there comes a point when we cannot defend the indefensible any more. We have gone too far.
I bought the newspaper on Sunday. My son, like millions of boys and girls across the country, loves Erling Haaland. There was a picture of him on the front page of the paper, and next to it was advertised a free £3 bet. I do not want my son’s love of football linked to betting. I should declare an interest as administrative steward for the British Boxing Board of Control.
Gambling is no longer just gambling; it is embedded in the sports programmes that we see everywhere. When I drive home from London, I like to listen to the match on talkSPORT, and it cuts over to a betting expert to tell people the latest odds. At the end of each round of a boxing match, they improve the odds on what they are doing. When I was in the betting shop, there was a limit on football betting. No one could bet on singles, doubles and trebles, only an accumulator. It was not possible to bet in game as can be done now.
I do not believe the Labour Government brought about the Gambling Act 2005 envisaging smartphones. That legislation did not envisage the examples we have talked about today—but they need to stop. I see nothing wrong with betting shops being open the way they are—they were once sleazy places, but they do support the industry—but I believe we have gone too far with advertising.
Gambling has taken the space of tobacco companies. Mr Turner, you are more or less my age; you will remember the Embassy darts championship and the Embassy snooker championship. You will remember the John Player Special Formula 1 cars on a Sunday afternoon. The livery of the McLaren cars was the same as a packet of Marlboro cigarettes. When we see Stake going round the circuit, it is the same thing. I really think we need a regulator with real teeth that can shut these companies down, and a change in the law. I hope that when the Minister stands up, he will talk—
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this debate on an issue that matters deeply to many of my constituents, and I thank him for the experiences he shared in his opening contribution.
I felt compelled to come along today following a recent advice surgery I held in my constituency. I met my constituent Margaret, who bravely shared the impact of gambling on her life and, more specifically, her son’s. Tragically, Margaret’s son took his own life because of the impact of his gambling addiction. Margaret never knew that her son was an addict; she learned of it only following his sudden death, when she reviewed bank statements and discovered how debt had piled up, ultimately becoming too much for him.
I think that speaks to how gambling impacts people. What is at first an occasional trip to the bookies becomes something uncontrollable and all-consuming. People suffer in silence, hiding their addiction from their families as the debt grows and the shame deepens. There will be countless people battling this addiction in silence in our communities. The responsibility to intervene and prevent harm cannot only be for individuals and their families. Gambling operators must do more. Operators should identify unusual patterns, monitor online activity and recognise regular customers, acting early to prevent debt from spiralling.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful contribution. GamCare has found that there has been exponential growth in online gambling. More than half its callers struggle with online gambling and 60% said online slots were the main problem. We just heard about many people struggling with debt and the affordability of gambling. Does my hon. Friend think that, with the amount of data online gambling companies have, we should pursue affordability checks, so that nobody can gamble more than they can afford?
Maureen Burke
I agree that that should be looked at.
Margaret’s story is heartbreaking but, through her grief, she is determined to act. I am proud to be working with her to bring a petition to this House. Margaret began the campaign before I was elected to this place, with my predecessor, David Linden, and I am pleased that the petition has already secured hundreds of signatures. Margaret’s call is for the Government to introduce tougher regulation and requirements for gambling operators and financial institutions.
I am certain that Margaret will be encouraged by the action that the UK Government are already taking, with the announcement of a statutory levy on gambling operators. The money raised from that levy will be used to fund research, prevention and health programmes. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what further steps the Government intend to take to address the tragic harms caused by gambling, recognising the impact that such addiction has not just on the individual, but on the families who are too often left picking up the pieces.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate and for his insightful opening speech. I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time, so I will focus on a small number of points.
In 2023, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities published its latest report on the economic and social cost of the harms associated with gambling. It identified that 1.76 million people participate in harmful gambling in England, of whom 168,000 are classified as experiencing problem gambling. Those figures are enormous. GambleAware estimates that in Dartford, the community I am privileged to represent in this place, one in 33 people have a problem gambling severity index score of 8-plus. In layman’s terms, that means that they have experienced adverse consequences from gambling and may have lost control over their behaviour.
Like other Labour Members, I was elected on a manifesto committing us to reducing gambling-related harm, and I very much welcome the progress that we are making. The statutory levy and slot stake limits are both impressive steps forward, but there are still a few areas in which I—and other Members, I am sure—have identified the need for Government action.
First, as a football fan, I am pleased that the Premier League will ban front-of-shirt advertising by gambling companies from the summer of 2026, but anyone who regularly watches or attends matches will know that that is not enough. We need to go further and ban all shirt advertising, as well as perimeter advertising, and other sports need to follow that lead.
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we need to reform how coroners look at the role of problem gambling, because many bereaved families have felt that problems with gambling were simply excluded from consideration. I support calls for the Government to look at how they might reform the coroner service to ensure that the causes of preventable deaths, such as those linked with gambling, are properly examined and addressed to prevent future deaths. Importantly, the evidence submitted by families must be properly interrogated.
I pay tribute to all organisations involved in reducing gambling harm, but particularly Gambling with Lives, which has put families bereaved by gambling suicide at the heart of its work.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate.
When I first became involved in this issue, the huge focus was on reducing the harm from FOBTs, and on the fact that people were losing hundreds if not thousands of pounds in a matter of minutes. That battle was won, but less than 10 years on it feels as though we are living in a different world. So many bets are placed on phones at all hours, encouraged by push notifications, email marketing and free bets. We have to do more to ensure that the regulation keeps up with reality. I want to focus on two things: how to make online gambling safer and what should happen in the event of a tragic suicide.
Almost three quarters of callers to the national gambling helpline said that they had struggled with online gambling. Last week, a High Court judge found that a well-known gambling firm sent a problem gambler more than 1,300 marketing emails, despite rules stating that companies should not advertise to high-risk users. In a world in which the data that companies hold on each individual is so granular, I do not believe that they are doing anywhere near what they could to detect patterns of problem gambling and meaningfully intervene.
The High Court ruling makes a link between customer protection and the suppression of marketing, yet the previous Government told us that there is no causal link between marketing and harm. I ask the Minister whether the Department will look again at the issue in the light of the ruling. What further safeguards could be put in place to protect vulnerable and at-risk players from marketing?
Gambling addiction is hard to talk about. Many people’s gambling habits are a source of shame, which pushes the issue further into the dark. I met Liz and Charles —who is in the Public Gallery today—a long time ago. They have been powerful campaigners for families affected by suicide. Their charity is calling for an independent investigation into every gambling suicide so that lessons can be learned and fed into regulation and improved public information.
Unfortunately, too many families who have lost loved ones through addiction tell stories of how hard it is to get information from the gambling companies. Will the Minister work with the Ministry of Justice to look at what happens when a death has occurred and at how licensing conditions can encourage operators to be more transparent?
For many people, including me, gambling means an occasional each-way bet on the grand national or buying a scratchcard, but there are 168,000 people in the west midlands who say that problem gambling is devastatingly affecting their lives. For them and for their families, we need to do more.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this debate. I can be brief, because many of my points have already been made.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke), who mentioned her constituent Margaret, I have been an MP for only seven months. In this job we meet people who are going through difficult times, but I will never forget my meeting with my constituents Judith Bruney and her friend Liz. They came to my office in Dinnington to tell me about their sons, both of whom were hard-working, honourable, good young men trying to make their way in the world, but both of whom took their own life far too young as a result of their addiction to gambling. Chris, Judith’s son, was talented and hard-working but, without any of his close family knowing, he went spiralling into the depths of a gambling problem that in the end meant that he took his own life.
I want to stress the point, which my hon. Friend has already made, that the trauma for the families did not end at that point. Afterwards, both Liz and Judith had to keep fighting for answers about how this happened and why this happened against an industry, and frankly a system, that too often closes doors, shuts down and does not look into the very important issues affecting hundreds or thousands of people every year.
I urge the Government and the Minister to work with the Ministry of Justice in particular to look at ways in which we can empower coroners’ courts, and indeed place responsibilities on them, to look into these issues in a robust and rigorous manner. At the moment, we simply do not know the scale of the problem. We have heard a lot of statistics in this debate, but they vary because we just do not know what we are dealing with. Until we do, we cannot properly solve it.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this debate. It is vital that we have this discussion, and I hope that it will lead to some change.
A few weeks ago, I was visited by my constituent Lesley Wade, whose son, as we have heard, killed himself after engaging with online gambling for an extended period. We have already heard how awful that was, but what really stood out for me in the story that Lesley told me was how insidious it was and how no one around him knew what he was going through or the stresses that he was under. Although the psychology and biology underlying a lot of gambling addiction are the same as for hard drugs or alcohol, the visual signs are often not there, so families are not seeing the deterioration in people as they go through this trauma or the warning signs that could lead them to step in.
Aaron, Lesley’s son, was gambling at work, in the pub and in his bedroom. No one knew about it, largely because the online gambling industry is using techniques designed to get into people’s brain and mess up their brain chemistry. I believe that that is entirely intentional and entirely known by these companies. We are not dealing with a situation in which these companies are just maximising their product and innovating in a harm-free way. I am certain that this is a real harm.
I am also certain that this is a public health emergency, which is why I am very keen to see public health take a lead. The DCMS has a role to play, but I do not think that it should be the lead Department on handling gambling harms and managing the risk. It is important that we look at how the health system is responding, not just with treatment but with identification and data. Changing the way coroners operate would really help.
As a counter to what some Members have said about other areas of the gambling industry, I speak as someone with seaside towns and resorts in my constituency. We have great beaches, but also lots of amusement arcades. When I speak to the people running those arcades, what really stands out is that they are very concerned about the wild west that is online gambling. They would like to see change.
Jim Shannon
One concern that many of us have is about the way gambling companies very often get planning permission for casinos on high streets across this great nation. That happened in my town of Newtownards: even with all the opposition, the planning rules still let it happen. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern?
Kevin McKenna
I do not believe that a prohibition on gambling is the right approach—we can see how that would fail—but I believe that it should be a managed problem. It is a very high-risk area, and we need to look comprehensively at how gambling is organised, legislated for and regulated in this country. We should look at everything. It is time to review the legislation. First and foremost, I want this to be seen through a public health lens.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate. As the MP for Cheltenham, I am no stranger to gambling, and as a liberal I believe in holding power to account. That includes powerful and predatory gambling companies.
As hon. Members have said, it is important at the outset of the debate to separate the vast majority of gambling on jump racing and harmless flutters—mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), who is no longer in his place—from the pernicious practices that are commonplace in the gambling industry. They are up in our grill 24/7, 365 days a year.
Where once sports betting was done in the relatively sterile environment of betting shops, markets can now be accessed 24/7 from the comfort—or, in many cases, the extreme discomfort—of someone’s own home. A few thumb presses on a screen at 3 am is all it takes to lay a bet on a Peruvian second division football game they have never heard of, an obscure tennis match in the far east among players they have never heard of, or an amateur Australian basketball match. If that is not their bag, they might register for online games such as bingo, roulette or slots.
That convenient 24/7 availability is advertised to us forcefully by people with limitless pots of money. It is on the front of football shirts until 2026 and on every touchline. It is in every advert break during football matches, with the pundits commentating on that day’s game often encouraging us to get involved in the fun. The splicing of journalism and commentary with advertising should give us all pause for thought. If I might say so, without naming anyone in particular, those pundits should think hard about the difficulties created by their dual role as commentators and advocates for the betting industry. That is not an acceptable way for public figures to behave.
Ben Coleman
On people appearing to be one thing and actually being something else, does the hon. Member agree that 100% of the gambling levy should be given to independent bodies that are answerable to Ministers and Parliament, not to charities backed by gambling companies?
Max Wilkinson
Absolutely. There is a role for a separate levy as well, which I will come to later, to support the horseracing industry, which needs to be viewed separately from the rest of this, as I said.
The Government must also think about the broadcasters who screen games and run their own associated betting operations, because the gap between the scenarios portrayed in gambling adverts and the reality is nothing short of sinister. In gambling adverts, people are having a great time in the pub with their mates. They are in fun scenarios, playing roulette, wearing sharp suits or sparkly dresses, with dancing and jolly times being had by all. In reality, such gambling is, in the main, far from a social occasion. It is undertaken mostly by people who are addicted to gambling apps, losing money at home alone, often desperate and with nobody to talk to.
Chris Evans
I have in front of me a press release from Entain, which announces that Liverpool has become Ladbrokes’ official betting partner. It says:
“The partnership will provide Ladbrokes with a range of exclusive content opportunities and activations to reward and entertain customers and fans”.
What does the hon. Member think those rewards and entertainment will be?
Max Wilkinson
In most cases, a financial loss to the individual who takes part.
These people are unable to talk to their friends and family about the losses and their addiction. They are unable to seek help, despite the repeated suggestions from gambling companies that when the fun stops, people should stop gambling. The gambling companies know what we in the Chamber know: addicts cannot stop. They are not able to, no matter how many times they see a gentle nudge on a fun advert on the television. It is estimated that 48% of people in the UK regularly gamble and that the gambling market is now worth about £15 billion. But, as has been said, that is revenue, and then there is other revenue. We must be clear about where the revenue is coming from.
Receipts from April to September last year total more than £1.7 billion, a 6% increase on the previous year. A study by the University of Liverpool found that over 290,000 betting accounts experience losses of over £2,000 each year. This leads directly to loss of life. Public Health England estimates that there are 400 gambling-related suicides every year: more than one a day. Every single death is a tragedy. Despite this worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow and has lagged behind the technology, the pervasive level of advertising and changing consumer habits.
Abtisam Mohamed
Does the hon. Member agree that we cannot allow the sector to regulate itself? If allowed to, its members will do what benefits them and ensure they prioritise profit, not the needs of vulnerable users.
Max Wilkinson
Of course. I started by talking about the need for liberals to hold power to account. That goes for Liberal Democrats and small-l liberals, and there are many small-l liberals in the room, I am sure. We know that power does not hold itself to account. Those in positions of power, where they have the power to literally print money, will not regulate themselves. That is obvious to everyone—and, I am sure, to the Minister too.
As I said, despite the worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow. Since the Gambling Act 2005, we have seen action on fixed-odds betting terminals and bans on credit card gambling to reduce harm. That is to be welcomed. The 2023 White Paper on gambling sought to modernise regulations, and the new Government increased the gambling levy. That is also welcome, but more action is urgently needed.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the remote gaming duty should be raised from 21% to 42% to provide more funding for initiatives to tackle problem gambling. It is also clear that to tackle problem gambling we need more restrictions on the bombardment of gambling advertising on all of our screens. A new ombudsman must be set up to provide redress for people wronged by gambling companies, who are the victims in this discussion. Effective affordability checks must be put in place, and we must start treating gambling addiction as a public health problem. It is simply not good enough to continue under the pretence that this form of addiction does not require the sort of help and therapy provided to the sufferers of other addictions. It makes no sense.
Those asks must be funded by duties on the industry, not taxpayers. The gambling industry reportedly costs the economy a net £1.4 billion per year. Organisations like GambleAware and others mentioned today have carried out important work in this sector. That should be commended. While making these changes, which are all about the stick, it is important that the heritage asset that is our horseracing sector, which I represent in Cheltenham, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), must be given a carrot too. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors, and I know that Ministers are looking at this. We have previously discussed in this room reforms to the gambling levy to better provide support for our domestic racecourses. Could the Minister update us on her discussions on that? That is not the main point of this debate today, as I have been very clear.
In conclusion, action to prevent harm to problem gamblers is long overdue. The sector requires widespread reform so that the bombardment of gambling adverts luring people into 24/7 betting cycles is ended. We cannot continue to ignore this problem that is costing our economy, splitting families and causing so much unnecessary suffering.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue.
As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission.
However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers.
We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation.
Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years.
Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year.
I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons.
As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity.
Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact.
First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly.
We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating:
“On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.”
If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members.
There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play.
I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury?
Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account?
I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind her that I would like very much to allow Alex Ballinger two minutes to wind up at the end.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate you on your elevated position, and I will heed your comments on the time. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on gambling harm. It is a real pleasure to welcome him in leading what I believe is his first Westminster Hall debate. I also refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which states that I took part in a charity bet last April.
My hon. Friend spoke movingly, as did Members from across the House, about those who have suffered from gambling-related harm and suicide and those who have sadly lost their lives. I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to all those who are affected by these issues.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Organisations such as Gordon Moody in my constituency provide essential and invaluable residential treatment for individuals suffering from severe gambling addiction, as well as mental health services and advice about how to detangle addiction. How are the Government supporting those organisations in their efforts to prevent gambling-related suicide, and does the Minister agree that an expansion of Government-backed rehabilitation services, especially those focused on children, is essential?
Stephanie Peacock
I have seen at first hand the impact of gambling-related harms. As shadow Minister for gambling, I spoke to individuals and families who have been directly impacted by such harm. I visited a Gordon Moody treatment centre, which I believe is in her constituency, spoke to families in Parliament and hosted roundtables with the prevention sector. The Minister for Gambling regularly engages with those who have lived experience of gambling harm.
Today, I will set out the Government’s position on gambling-related harm and the important action we are taking to reduce it. This debate is framed by the 2023 Gambling White Paper. Published by the last Government, it laid the foundations for once in a generation gambling reform. We are working with the industry to modernise regulation, as well as to implement meaningful changes to protect people from gambling-related harm.
Before I do that, I will respond to points made during the debate. If I do not cover them all now, I will during the course of my speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and others asked when the statutory levy would be reviewed. That will happen within five years. Affordability checks are being piloted. The voluntary ombudsman was in the White Paper and the Minister for Gambling will update shortly. I would argue that the Government are acting to protect people from harm, implementing the White Paper and fulfilling our manifesto commitment to reduce harm.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a really important question about Northern Ireland. I am always keen to meet my counterparts. I would be very pleased to write to him, and the DCMS stands ready to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to strengthen regulation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) raised the important issue of horseracing, of which he is a strong champion, as did the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and others. I will relay their points to the Minister for Gambling. The Government’s position is that the horseracing and gambling industries should get round the table and come to a voluntary deal.
I will briefly respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who said that the levy was in jeopardy. I say gently to him that the only thing putting it in jeopardy is him voting against it, as he did last week, which is rather curious given that it was his Conservative Government that published the measure.
Mr French
The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.
Stephanie Peacock
I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.
The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.
On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.
We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.
In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.
Dan Carden
Reflecting some of the points made early on in the debate, will the Department look at lotteries, pools and sports betting differently from addictive online forms of gambling, which we know are some of the most harmful? There is an opportunity to shape how gambling goes forward in this country.
Stephanie Peacock
I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him.
The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week.
I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever.
I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am not quite sure how the logic works on that. We introduced a £2 limit in the betting shops, but for some reason we have introduced a higher limit where we think the harms are greatest. Which one is wrong?
Stephanie Peacock
I had made a note of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I was just coming on to address some of the points he made, although he may not agree with my response. Before I do so, I pay tribute to the work he has done. He is an experienced Member on this issue and was instrumental in forming the White Paper.
Play on land-based gaming machines is often anonymous. Online gambling is more accessible to many, and there are extra protections that can be afforded to account-based online play, such as monitoring data for signs of harm, safer gambling checks and checks for financial risks. None the less, I will relay the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the Minister for Gambling.
The Government are also introducing for the first time a statutory gambling levy to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. The levy represents a watershed moment and a significant uplift in the investment dedicated to this area, along with greater Government oversight and a renewed commitment to better understanding, tackling and treating gambling harms. The statutory levy will be charged to all licensed gambling operators, replacing and building on the successes of the current system, which is based on voluntary donations. The existing system for support and treatment would not have been possible without the financial support of the industry, but the time is now right to improve and expand the system, and to put funding on a more sustainable footing and trust in the system beyond doubt.
We have designed the levy to be charged in a way that recognises the higher levels of harm associated with some online products and the higher operating costs in the land-based sector. It will guarantee that all operators pay their fair share while ensuring that any impacts are proportionate. We expect the levy to raise around £100 million every year for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. Twenty per cent. of the funding will be directed to research, which will be overseen by UK Research and Innovation to deliver a bespoke research programme on gambling; 30% will be allocated to developing a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention, and the remaining 50% will be allocated to treatment overseen by NHS England and the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales. A full treatment pathway, from referral and triage through to aftercare, will be commissioned. Not only will the levy deliver a significant uplift in investment in areas relating to research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm, but it will also provide robust Government oversight and mobilise world-leading expertise among our public bodies.
Many Members are keen to know more about who will lead on prevention—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked this question. This is a very complex but important area, and we want to take the time needed to get it right. We are grateful for the funding provided by the gambling sector while the statutory levy was not in place, but we have taken note of Members’ desire to know what comes next and we intend to dedicate greater investment to prevention. I know the Minister for Gambling will announce her decision on prevention very soon. The levy represents the beginning of a new phase for gambling harm reduction where people in our country are better protected from and aware of the risks of harmful gambling, and it has wide support across the sector.
I acknowledge Members’ comments regarding gambling-related suicide. I am aware of the devastating impact that harmful gambling can have, including some instances of suicide. A single instance of this is one too many. We are absolutely committed to working across Government on this issue, as some Members have asked, including working with the Department of Health and Social Care as part of its work to take forward the suicide prevention strategy. We will continue to work with the Gambling Commission to develop the evidence base on gambling-related suicide through its gambling survey of Great Britain.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and others spoke about the role of coroners. I recognise the important role that coroners play in assessing the facts behind instances of suicide. They are already required to make a report to a person or organisation where they think action could be taken to prevent future deaths. It is beyond the coroner’s power to investigate why a death occurred, and requiring coroners to do so would turn a fact-finding process into a subjective judgment, which would be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent. However, we will continue to explore possible options in this area, alongside introducing landmark reforms to prevent harm before it occurs and establish a comprehensive treatment system for those who need it.
Many Members have raised the issue of advertising, and I acknowledge their concerns. Advertising can have a disproportionate impact on those who are already suffering from gambling-related harm, and we know that Members are particularly concerned about the potential impact on children and young people. Key sports bodies are raising standards in this area, and the gambling sponsorship codes of conduct brought in voluntarily by sporting bodies last year are a positive step forward. The Premier League’s decision to ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors from the end of next season was also a welcome step. We will be monitoring these reforms to assess what impact they are having on the ground.
I understand that gambling operators may feel that their own messaging and volume of ads are appropriate. The independent Advertising Standards Authority has existing robust rules in place to ensure that gambling adverts, wherever they appear, are socially responsible and that advertising is an advantage that regulated operators have over the unlicensed sector. However—
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Stephanie Peacock
In the interests of time, I will not give way.
However, the question of “appropriate volume” needs to be looked at in aggregate, and thought about from the perspective of the public, especially children. We expect the industry to take the initiative on this by working across industry with sporting bodies and academics on harm prevention. In addition, the Government are eager to see improvements made to safer gambling messages. It is clear that industry ownership of safer gambling messages is not sustainable in the long term, and we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new approach to messaging. In the meantime, we expect the industry to make improvements in this space; we will be monitoring the impact of the sector’s work, and will step in if necessary.
This Government are committed to protecting the most vulnerable in society from gambling harm. Together with the Gambling Commission, we have made good progress on implementing the measures in the gambling White Paper. We have taken action on online slots and the levy, and we will continue to implement other measures. I am grateful for the important contributions made by Members today. I thank them for sharing their stories, illustrating why the issue is so important, and for the constructive discussion. It is a pleasure to respond to the debate.
Alex Ballinger
I start this winding-up speech by paying tribute to Liz and Charles from Gambling with Lives, who have done so much to support measures to protect people who are suffering from gambling harms, and have worked with so many Members across the House on this campaign for so many years. I thank them.
Turning to the points raised by my colleagues, first, I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his long work on this campaign. It has been a pleasure to join his all-party parliamentary group, and I appreciate the work he has done on fixed-odds betting terminals. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for his long work on addiction. It was important and relevant to this debate, and I thank him for comparing gambling to other types of addiction.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising the absence of proper legislation in Northern Ireland on this issue. I am glad the Minister is looking into that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for talking about the proliferation of gambling shops in her constituency, and how they are concentrated in the areas with the most deprivation, which is a challenge that other Members have spoken about. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for talking about the benefits of horseracing in his constituency, and comparing that with the harms done by more damaging and challenging forms of online gambling.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for talking about the challenges in Greater Manchester, her constituent David Smith, and the example of the treatment he undertook; and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for talking very powerfully about the connection between gambling and sports. Many gambling commentators are, in my view, taking advantage of their position to push this harmful activity on people who are just there to enjoy a game of football.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) spoke about the challenges around debt, her constituents’ problems and the campaign she is pushing forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) talked about the economic and social costs of gambling. We have heard from the shadow Minister and others about the economic benefits, but there huge economic costs associated with the harms that we should reflect on.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) spoke about her campaign to make online gambling safer. We are neighbours; we agree on many of these issues and have similar challenges, and I agree with her that we should encourage the gambling industry to make the process more transparent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), who talked about his constituents Judith and Liz, and the very painful situation they have gone through. It is always so difficult to hear these stories, and I thank him for championing theirs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) spoke about the challenges in coastal areas and about how there are different grades of harms from different types of gambling. Challenging and tackling more difficult online forms may sometimes be of benefit to the less dangerous forms that he has in his constituency. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) also talked about horseracing, but compared it with the difficult harms that people face, as well as the addiction to gambling apps and online gambling, which many of us see among younger people.
Alex Mayer
What does my hon. Friend think about online games that are not gambling, but in which, when someone loses a turn, they are immediately presented with something like an online app roulette wheel to win an extra game? Is that normalising gambling?
Alex Ballinger
That is a concern. We might need another debate to talk about the effect of online games on children.
I welcome the Minister’s comments and thank her for the work she has been doing on this issue, alongside the Minister for Gambling. More needs to be done. We need a stronger push on gambling marketing, sponsorship—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
High Street Retailers
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I will call Mr Gregory Campbell to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for high street retailers.
This subject has concentrated minds for a number of years, and we are all affected by the problems associated with high street retailing. In fact, Mary Portas said that the future of the high street will involve
“less retail but better retail”—
that was about three years ago. I am afraid that those who say there are difficulties or problems in the high street are mistaken, because unless towns across the United Kingdom are different from the towns I experience in Northern Ireland, high street retailing is in more than just difficulty. Unless there is dramatic, innovative intervention, the high street in the United Kingdom as we know it will die.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is right to say that about the high street, and retailers across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are saying the same. Does he agree that the only way for the high street to survive is for it to adapt and move along with the times? That takes technology, innovation and a support system to which Government are committed.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Innovation will be the key. In many towns—I am sure that this is applicable across the UK—there are enough coffee shops and charity shops, and both of those are admirable additions to our high streets. In fact, when I am on constituency work, I find coffee shops very convenient, especially if I do not have much time to get a bite to eat. They offer a facility, as do charity shops, but the high street has to be much more than that.
This is not about the higher-end retailing that exists in, for example, Regent Street or Oxford Street, and I say that not to minimise the high streets across our country. They may be doing well—by the looks of Christmas just past, they are doing well in central London—and much of that is down to money that comes in from outside the United Kingdom.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
In Brent, we have a lot of independent shops. Does the hon. Member agree that we should be more innovative in giving opportunities for more pop-up shops to start businesses?
Mr Campbell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that; I was just coming on to the business of independent shops.
In Northern Ireland, independent retailers have an effective representational body. They are manfully and womanfully struggling to present their case in the face of huge multinationals that exist, particularly on the edge of town and out of town, where there have been a number of out-of-town developments, which tend to swamp town centres. They take advantage of what is, by and large, free car parking, and town centres are choking in some respects because of commuters and people having to pay for charging.
We must be more innovative, particularly in the prime months—in the run-up to Christmas, for example—when we must try to convince various Government Ministers to introduce a charging structure that would benefit local independent retailers on the high street to ensure that some benefit is accrued to local people.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that we can also look at other initiatives to support independent retailers? For example, there is the “Living Over The Shops” scheme that Antrim and Newtownabbey borough council brought in, which just launched its second phase in Ballyclare and Randalstown close to the end of last month. There is also the work that the council was able to do with the levelling-up moneys; it was able to redevelop a space scheme in the middle of Antrim town, where it has opened office facilities just above my constituency office.
Mr Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. Those two or three options are starting to develop. Those that are in vogue at the moment are reasonably successful, and they need to be built on.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that this is also about a series of relationships between local councils, small businesses and others to try to enhance town centres? For example, in my area, Reading borough council is working hard at getting improvements to paving and other visual improvements in the town centre to help to support small businesses. That is a valid initiative, which will hopefully help to attract more people into our town centre.
Mr Campbell
I concur with what the hon. Gentleman said. I notice that this is turning into an intervention debate with a speech, but, given that I intervene very regularly—
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Tulip Siddiq
The hon. Member is being very generous with his time. He has brought a very important debate to the House. Others might disagree, but I think my constituency is the best in the world. We have one of the prettiest high streets in Hampstead, but the problem at the moment is that Hampstead post office is under threat of closure because of years of under-investment. I personally have been going there since I was a teenager. Elderly people and small businesses, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, rely on it. Does he agree that if we want our high streets to thrive, the post office has to stay open?
Mr Campbell
I was just coming to the issue of bank branch closures and post office closures, which unfortunately have exacerbated the problem in recent years. We had a debate this morning where some Members mentioned the development of banking hubs, which has helped to a small degree, but they will take some time to roll out. We must remember that more than 2.5 million people are employed in the retail sector across the United Kingdom, so this is not a niche sector that some people are annoyed about but which does not affect a large number of people: this is a huge part of our economy, and it has to be the subject of innovative change and dynamic alignment.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The challenges we are experiencing on Saintfield Road and Sandy Row sound very much like what the hon. Gentleman will be dealing with in Coleraine and Dungiven. Retail provides vibrancy, shared space and a huge rates take. Lisburn Road in south Belfast puts around £6 million into the coffers of Belfast city council. Could we do more from Stormont in calibrating the rates and supporting some of those particularly vulnerable sectors, such as retail and hospitality?
Mr Campbell
The short answer to that is yes. I think some things are being done by devolved Government, but I was alluding to the rating of commercial premises in the run-up to Christmas. We need to reduce car parking charges and rates at that time because many businesses exist throughout the year only because of the turnover that they get between October and Christmas eve.
Richard Walker, the managing director of Iceland—who I understand is a supporter of the Labour Government, so I hope this is not viewed as a criticism—said just this week:
“The Treasury is right to look at levelling the playing field on tax, but it has parked its tractor in the wrong place going after hard-working British farmers. Let’s stop messing around and make online sales tax reform the priority. High streets and farmers are the bedrock of this great country, we need to get behind them.”
I could not agree more. We need a fundamental reassessment of where our high streets will be not in 15 years’ time but in 15 months’ time.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. It is already clear from this debate that decline in our high streets is a common problem across the UK, including in my constituency. We probably all agree that it will take innovation, creativity and, crucially, investment to redevelop our high streets. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in paying tribute to the work of local organisations such as Love Oor Lang Toun and the Adam Smith Global Foundation in my constituency, which are doing so much to develop the future of Kirkcaldy?
Mr Campbell
I do not know those organisations, but I presume, on the basis of the hon. Lady’s endorsement, that they are very worth while and worth defending.
This week—this is a very topical issue—the Government in the Irish Republic have indicated that they will look at VAT terms. Of course, Northern Ireland is in very close proximity to the Republic. Here in the UK, VAT is charged at 20%, and in the Irish Republic it is 13%. That puts our high street retailers, particularly those in the hospitality sector, at a bit of a disadvantage. The Government in the Republic have indicated that they will reduce their rate yet again from 13% down to 9%, which means that the disadvantage gap for Northern Ireland retailers and consumers will widen considerably.
The Minister will obviously not be able to respond immediately. If he does, I would be very surprised. I would welcome his response if he were able to say, “I’m going to go to the Treasury and get special dispensation for Northern Ireland hospitality on the high street, with a 5% introductory rate for the next four years of this Parliament”—I think that would be an excellent idea that would get support across the divide in Northern Ireland. But I hope he will have some discussion with his colleagues to see what can be done. We are at an acute disadvantage, and it is most heavily felt. In the past couple of days, hotel managers and hospitality retailers have been on local radio saying, “Our opportunity for business is diminishing even more as a result of this decision to reduce VAT in the adjoining businesses, just a few miles across the border, down from 13% to 9%. We are struggling with charging a 20% rate.” So a 5% rate would be very welcome.
In conclusion—
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is funny how saying “In conclusion” gets our attention. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he wants independent stores, fantastic cafés or great restaurants, I can heartily recommend the high streets in Boscombe, Pokesdown, Southport and Tuckton. I could go on, but I will not. I particularly recommend the fantastic vintage store In Off the Far Post in Boscombe. Would the hon. Member agree that we need the Government to support our high streets so that we have more independent shops and fewer candy shops and vape shops, which are often so brightly lit that we can almost see them from space?
Mr Gregory Campbell
I agree with what the hon. Member said in his brief tour of his constituency, which I am sure is very enticing to those who have not been. We need support, but we need more than just more of the same. We need to have a structured look at what the high street will look like.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government “high street rental auctions” approach, in which councils can auction the retail rights of an empty shop, is valuable, but that the guidance needs to be changed? Will he invite the Minister to change the guidance so that it can apply to department stores as well as other places?
Mr Campbell
I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to that, as it sounds like a concept worth pursuing. I thank the Minister for being in his place Hopefully, he will be able to respond positively, to give us an indication of what the Government intend to do and to take a really radical look at our high streets in the next few years.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Turner; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
My constituency is a mix of countryside towns and villages, so many of our shops are small businesses at the heart of our communities. But the last few years have been very hard on them: covid, the bungled implementation of Brexit and the stripping out of public services have all sadly revealed the weaknesses of the previous Government and taken their toll. In addition, the SNP cannot manage the finances and that has also had an impact on our town centres.
Now, we are looking to the future. The UK Government have put an end to 14 years of austerity, begun to rebuild our economy and delivered a historic £5 billion extra to Scotland. The 40% business rates relief for the retail sector in Scotland will kick-start investment, get businesses into empty properties and support our hard-working entrepreneurs.
However, despite their record settlement, the SNP Government have refused to pass that support on. It would cost them £22 million to support both leisure and retail with business relief—roughly half the cost of suing Rangers football club; that is their priorities in action right there. COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—has said that £300 million would help get our councils back on their feet, investing in our high streets and bringing our town centres back to life. That is less than the Scottish Government’s overspend on two ferries. For too long, Scottish businesses have paid the price of SNP failure.
Our shops are competing against online giants; that is part of life now, but we must recognise the importance of thriving town centres. I certainly do, because the people in Hamilton, Lanark, Larkhall, Lesmahagow and across the constituency tell me that they want to go somewhere they can meet their friends, try on a pair of shoes and maybe have a cup of coffee. Why, in that case, is the support that the Government are giving our high street shops not being reflected in Scotland? Why can the SNP Government not help level the playing field and give our brilliant shops a fighting chance?
I know that it will be hard for the Scottish Government to deal with their overspend and the chaotic management of Scotland’s money, mirrored terribly in the SNP’s own finances. But despite the problems that they have created for themselves, it is now time to do the right thing: to set out a long-term path to support local economies, start working across all levels of Government and stop wasting money.
I know that we can get the boards down from the shop windows and that there is the talent, drive and energy out there to bring our high streets back to life. All people need is the opportunity to do what they do best. That is what we are here to deliver.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. In the usual way, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing today’s important debate, and I apologise to him and to other Members for getting my timing slightly wrong. I will make a point of reading the early part of this debate in Hansard a little later.
We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for East Londonderry and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), but also important interventions from a series of hon. Members. In the short time available to me, I will probably not be able to do full justice to all those interventions, but let me try to pick up at least one or two of the points made.
Crucially, we need to underline the fact that retail has a key role to play in supporting high streets in every corner of the UK—particularly in Northern Ireland, given the focus of this debate, but more generally across the UK as well. In 2023, the retail sector contributed about £110 billion to our economy: just under 5% of the total UK economy. It remains a very high employment sector, directly supporting 2.9 million jobs across the UK in 2023. In short, retail is the backbone of our high streets and remains a key driver to support economic growth.
I recognise that recently there have been concerning stories in the media about the challenges that retailers are facing, and I know that that is a concern for Members across the House. We know that retailers are facing a series of economic headwinds, as well as dealing with the challenges of changing consumer shopping habits and the rise of online shopping. A thriving high street will continue to need a strong retail offering, helping to drive growth in local economies and supporting local communities. Never has it been so important to help retailers—particularly the small and independent retail businesses to which a number of Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), have referred—to grow.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Minister rightly talks about the importance of supporting small and independent businesses. One thing that those businesses rely on is having access to banking, but banks are closing, which has a particular impact in rural communities. For example, my constituents have lost Barclays in Harleston and this year are due to lose Lloyds in Halesworth and Beccles. Will the Minister outline the progress that the Government are making on their pledge to roll out far more banking hubs so that local communities and businesses keep access to banking in their market towns and areas?
Gareth Thomas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer opened the 100th banking hub very recently, and I know from figures that Cash Access UK and LINK have published that 200 locations for banking hubs have been identified; that is part of the commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs.
But we want to do more. The Post Office plays a key role in offering banking services, particularly as banks themselves have exited the high street, and we are beginning work with the Post Office to strengthen its banking offer on the high street. I heard very clearly the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq) about the directly managed branch in her constituency. I recognise the importance of post offices to all our high streets. She will know that no decision has been made on Hampstead—or, indeed, on any other directly managed branch—but I know she will continue to campaign on this issue.
To support businesses, the Budget honoured the manifesto commitment not to raise corporation tax. It set out the tax road map for this Parliament, in which we will not change corporation tax, which means we have the lowest rate in the G7. All that will support businesses, including retailers, to invest.
As the hon. Member for East Londonderry is aware, retail is a devolved matter. I welcome measures such as the Back in Business rate support scheme, which has been created to incentivise business rate payers to consider occupying empty retail premises. Vacancy is a blight on too many of our high streets and town centres across the country and it can fuel a spiral of decline. That is why Government in all forms need to work together with local communities and businesses to strengthen the offer.
Mr Campbell
The Minister rightly points out the devolved nature of much of retail. Does he agree that the chronic level of VAT, which is not devolved—it is a matter for the Treasury—compared with our neighbour in the Irish republic is having a detrimental effect on retailers?
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Member may want me to go straight from this debate to the Treasury to get an immediate concession.
Gareth Thomas
That is generous of him. I will take that question away and look at it. I know that that is an issue particular to Northern Ireland. He will understand that it is not immediately the responsibility of the Department for Business and Trade, but I will none the less take a look at it.
Matt Rodda
Could the Minister provide a brief update on progress towards reforming business rates? It is a popular policy with many small businesses—particularly independent retailers in my area, who appreciate the Government’s work on this matter. They would be grateful for further updates.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget in October the intention to permanently lower the level of business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure. She published a discussion paper at the same time to involve the business community in further discussions about what else we can do in the business rates space. I strongly encourage hon. Members across the House to encourage businesses in their communities to get involved in that debate. That makes all the more striking the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley about the approach of the SNP Government in Scotland not to get behind businesses. I hope that her speech was listened to and will be acted on by those currently in government in Scotland.
Hon. Members will know that more widely we have introduced high street rental auctions, enabling local authorities to tackle decline on the high street by bringing vacant units back into use. We are already working with three local authorities to begin to learn the lessons of how that new power works.
Gareth Thomas
Forgive me, but I have only 2.5 minutes. If I missed something and the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will be happy to reply.
I have touched on business rates reform. We want to introduce a new business growth service to simplify the support available for all small businesses and bring it under one single trusted banner. We will set out further reforms in that regard in our small business strategy, which we will publish later this year.
Since I took office, I have been in engaging with the industry-led Retail Sector Council, which is a collaborative forum made up of widely experienced senior figures from across all parts of the retail industry, helping us and indeed other Government Departments to think through the challenges facing the retail sector. One of those big challenges is about how we tackle retail crime.
Shop theft continues to increase at an unacceptable level, with more and more offenders using violence and abuse against shop workers. Recent figures from the British Retail Consortium’s annual crime survey show that violent and abusive incidents were up by more than 50% last year, and retailers are reporting 55,000 thefts a day. That is why clamping down on that behaviour is one of the first steps that we are taking to deliver safer communities, including delivering on a specific commitment for a new offence of assault on a shop worker. We are also ending the effective immunity that the previous Government granted to help stop theft of goods under £200.
We all know that retail businesses are hugely important to our constituents and to our high streets. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry for giving the House the opportunity to raise this important issue. I am happy to take up further specific concerns that any hon. Member has in this space.
Question put and agreed to.
Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tax transparency in the Overseas Territories.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. Having worked on anti-corruption, open government and transparency issues for more than a decade, I am often asked why such issues matter when there are so many pressing challenges facing our country. It can often seem an intractable problem—billions and trillions flowing through the international financial system that will end up elsewhere. What difference does it make to our constituents? I hope this debate will show directly why it matters to our Treasury and our tax take; to the housing crisis; to the fight against organised crime; to the enforcement of our sanctions against Putin; to fighting poverty around the world; and to restoring trust, transparency and accountability to our democracy.
This Government have made a strong start on combating illicit finance and kleptocracy. I particularly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s personal campaign on this issue, which has seen an expansion of our sanctions, the appointment of Baroness Hodge as the UK’s anti-corruption champion, and a cross-departmental team of Ministers charged with developing a new anti-corruption strategy, to which I know my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has a strong commitment.
The Foreign Secretary’s ambition to transform Britian from the dirty-money capital to the anti-corruption capital of the world is absolutely the right objective. It matters for our international reputation and our standing in the world. To be taken seriously as a leader on democracy and anti-corruption, our own house has to be in order. The uncomfortable truth is that while some of the most notorious and brazen enablers of illicit finance and money laundering are operating as part of the UK family, we will not be able to claim that leadership role. Despite years of warm words and communiqués about fighting economic crime, the overseas territories are still one of the premier global destinations for moving dirty money, and it is time for that to change.
Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, I have led the local Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign in my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, where more than 6,000 properties are owned overseas. Our most popular activity is a local kleptocracy tour of often empty mansions owned by autocrats and their supporters from around the world. Transparency International found that £5.9 billion in suspicious funds had been used to purchase UK properties through shell companies registered in the overseas territories, with £1.1 billion of that in my constituency. The ownership vehicle of choice is an anonymous trust, with the most popular location being the British Virgin Islands. The BVI has a population of less than a quarter of my constituency, so it would be highly surprising if BVI residents were the beneficial owners of the properties.
Thanks to investigative journalists and a series of high-profile leaks from the Panama and Paradise papers to “Cyprus Confidential”, we know who the actual owners are. That is why the previous Government—with thanks to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—took action in the previous Parliament with cross-party support to implement a register of overseas entities. That gives us good and helpful information, but a glaring loophole remains. Trust-owned property does not need to be declared—and in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea that accounts for 40% of the foreign-owned property. That allows the UK property market to continue as a laundromat for illicit finance. I ask the Government to look at closing this loophole and adding trusts to the property register as soon as possible.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that without those actions there is a real danger that significant sums of Russian assets and money, which could be sanctioned and used to reconstruct Ukraine, will be left in the hands of the supporters and perpetrators of the war in Ukraine?
Joe Powell
I completely agree. Without transparency, we cannot follow the money. We have some prominent examples of properties owned by sanctioned oligarchs that came into the sanctions regime only after investigations uncovered those assets. Keeping the anonymous trust option available, without the requirement to declare the true owners, allows for exactly the sort of behaviour that my hon. Friend outlines.
The main opposition is from some highly self-interested trust lawyers, so I urge the Government to take on those claims and bring trust-owned property into the register, which would help us not only to fight economic crime but to revitalise our high streets, where buildings often sit empty because enforcement action cannot be taken when the true owners cannot be tracked down. Indeed, some of my constituents were evicted using a spurious section 21 notice by an anonymous landlord who was based overseas in a tax haven.
My local walking tour, as part of the Kensington Against Dirty Money campaign, ends outside Roman Abramovich’s frozen mansion, which he purchased for £120 million, on Kensington Palace Gardens. In the past week or so, Abramovich has again been in the news, this time for allegations that he owes approximately £1 billion in UK taxes. At the heart of this story are, again, the UK overseas territories. Abramovich and his advisers used a complex web of corporate structures, via Cyprus and the BVI, to use money from the sale of Sibneft back to the Russian Government at huge profit in 2005. They set up approximately 200 hedge funds and maintained that the operations were happening in the BVI, but it has now been uncovered that the real activity was continuing in London—indeed, in Stamford Bridge itself.
This is potentially the biggest tax case since Bernie Ecclestone, and it is vital that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has the resources it needs to investigate. Enforcement of the rules and regulations is critical to recovering as much money as possible for the Exchequer and supporting the Minister’s efforts to improve the public finances. It is also time to upgrade our anti-money laundering supervision regime for professional bodies such as accountancy and legal firms, so that dirty money does not flow through the City. The previous Government opened a consultation, but it has not been responded to.
This is urgent, because Abramovich’s is not an isolated case. For years, the BVI has been the global destination of choice for those seeking maximum secrecy for their money. It featured prominently in the Panama papers, in which half of the exposed entities were linked to the BVI. That is why Parliament has clearly stated its will that public registries of beneficial ownership should be implemented across the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.
At the first Joint Ministerial Council of this new Government, in November last year, the BVI, alongside other overseas territories, promised reforms to ensure maximum transparency, and the Government reiterated their commitment to full public access in due course. I absolutely support the Government in this mission, which is why it was so deeply disappointing to see the BVI’s proposals around company registries, which were published last month. Access would be severely restricted. One provision would even allow company owners to be notified not only that someone is attempting to uncover their identity, but of who is making the request and why, putting investigative journalists and anti-corruption activists at risk of legal or physical intimidation. Worse still, that warning system could tip off criminals and give them a head start, allowing them to move illicit assets before enforcement agencies can act. Such measures do not protect business or privacy; they protect kleptocrats and criminals.
We know it can be done: Gibraltar has shown us what can be achieved. It introduced a public register that is similar to the one that the UK has had for several years. If Gibraltar can do it and we can do it, so can the BVI, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and all the overseas territories. We must not let our Crown dependencies off the hook, either.
Many overseas territories have cited the privacy concerns outlined in the European Court of Justice rulings, but I encourage them all to review the sixth anti-money laundering directive, which would ensure that journalists, civil society, law enforcement and businesses with anti-money laundering duties all have access to the register anonymously and in full. I continue to believe that public registers are the best solution for the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, but minimum progress would be to meet that European regulatory standard.
It is clear from all the evidence—I expect we will hear much more today—that we need to do far more collectively to support the overseas territories to make progress on economic crime. The path forward is challenging, but I know the Government are seized of its importance. The overseas territories must meet the June deadline to make progress towards public registers. There must be no further delays. Trust-owned property should be included in the register of overseas entities. AML supervision should be strengthened to halt the enablers of dirty money. HMRC, the National Crime Agency and other enforcement agencies must proactively make cases and have the skills and resources they need.
To galvanise our international partners, the Foreign Secretary’s proposal for a summit of financial centres here in London would create a focal point for aligning rules and policies. I hope this debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of tackling corruption and economic crime.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to take part in the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. This is the third time for me this afternoon, but the first time for you—we wish you well in the job you have been elevated to. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for highting the concerns. I say well done on his speech and introduction to the subject matter; we do not hear enough about it in this House, but today gives us an opportunity.
I have been incredibly interested in the hon. Member’s goal to rid the UK of so-called dirty money. In Northern Ireland we have had more than our share of that, of course, through the paramilitary organisations—on both sides of the community, by the way. I remember a case that “Panorama” covered. Dirty money went from Estonia and Poland to the UK and then to Northern Ireland. That money flowed in either direction.
There is estimated to be at least £1.5 billion of UK property owned by Russians accused of financial crime or with links to the Kremlin. Along with others in this House—I can think of someone not too far away—I have already been sanctioned by the Russians. It is almost a badge of honour. I can be free with my words; I am not worried what they say about me. I think we should seize their properties, sell them and use the money to fund the needy in our palliative care units, or to build special education units throughout the UK—anything other than allow our nation to be used in such despicable ways.
I will come back to the point of the debate, which is the need to ensure that overseas tax havens are not providing more scope for tax evasion, or worse, for scurrilous, illegal behaviour. Sometimes it frustrates me, Mr Turner—I suspect it frustrates you every bit as much —when HMRC pursues someone for a slight overpayment or underpayment of tax, yet we have guys sucking away hundreds of millions of pounds and not a word about it.
Just last week I had a constituent in my office with his HMRC tax bill. He owed just over £500 in tax, and part of the reason was that he had not reckoned on the fact that the savings that he and his wife put aside for their pension, as they do not have private pensions, are being taxed. He said to me, “How do I get my hands on one of those foreign tax havens? The Government are taxing the money that I have saved for my future after they have taxed it before it goes into the bank account.” We all smiled—I know he does not mean it because I know him well—but the fact is that there are those who can use accounts in overseas territories to avoid taxes while hard-working middle-class families must pay twice on their income.
Members can understand my frustration on behalf of my constituents whenever they are getting squeezed by HMRC. It is not that we are against paying tax—we pay the tax; that is the way it is—but that we see others blatantly abusing the system. Unfortunately, our British overseas territories have become tax havens to which the money is siphoned off to avoid tax. There is something wrong with that scenario.
I realise that other hon. Members want to speak, so I will finish with this point: it is despicable that overseas territories act as jurisdictions of secrecy because they do not have strong financial reporting rules. I very much look forward to what the Minister will say: he is a good Minister with an understanding of the issues and of these broken questions that I ask him. Others will ask them much more expertly than I can; I just want clarity and transparency, and I want to see those who do wrong held accountable. As a Christian, I know that those who do wrong in this world will be accountable in the next world to God himself, but there is something wrong in this world if they are not accountable under the systems that we have laid down.
People do not have to declare where their money comes from. That has to change, not only for the sake of our constituents, but to ensure justice for all. To those who use the overseas territories to avoid the taxes they should pay, I say, “Your time has come.” I want to see what the Minister can do about that. How many times will working families be taxed while others with more money pay less because of loopholes?
I very much support the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater in his fight, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I also look forward to hearing from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). He is a man of integrity, and he is always there to uphold the issues that we bring forward.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for securing this debate. I have joked in previous debates that I could be known as the Member of Parliament for frozen assets; nothing could be truer today, as that is the topic at hand.
At least £5.9 billion in suspect funds has entered the UK property market via shell companies registered in the overseas territories. Over half of that money can be found in my constituency of Cities of London and Westminster. These forces blight our communities, driving out residents and local businesses and replacing them with empty shells of buildings owned by empty shells of companies.
Over the past few months, key pillars of the City and Westminster communities have been at risk of closure, including the Jubilee Hall gym and the Prince Charles cinema. Most notably, the central London YMCA, the oldest YMCA in the world, will close its doors this week. These institutions have always had to compete against the great and the good of London’s residential and business community, but they are increasingly being crowded out. They are bidding in a rental market against shadowy owners with nigh unlimited funds.
Individuals who have frequently made their wealth from corruption and the abuse of power, by skimming money from state procurement contracts or directly acquiring assets, are funnelling the proceeds of this ill-gotten wealth into our property market. They include Alexander Zakharov, the creator of the deadly Lancet drone being used to terrorise the people of Ukraine, whose family own a £1.5 million flat overlooking Big Ben; Daim Zainuddin, a former Malaysian Minister of Finance accused of extraordinary misappropriation of public funds, who owns a £28.6 million office in the City of London; and Mikhail Gutseriev, a major backer of the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko, whose son Said owns a £160 million portfolio of properties across the Cities of London and Westminster. The immense level of money laundering in London corrodes our communities, damages democracy around the world and blocks the growth prospects of our capital’s economy.
We have already heard why it is so important for the overseas territories, particularly the British Virgin Islands, to implement public registers of beneficial owners. Knowledge about property ownership is a vital tool for protecting our country from kleptocrats. Stonewalling by the authorities in the BVI leaves those who work tirelessly to expose cases of corruption fighting with one hand tied behind their back. Currently, only those in law enforcement can access information about beneficial ownership, and they have to apply for it on a case-by-case basis. The move to fully public registers of beneficial owners is sorely needed and long overdue. Public registers were first meant to be implemented by the end of 2020, which was 1,497 days ago, or 30 Liz Truss premierships.
The BVI has now, finally, suggested an approach, but it is simply not good enough. It will require applicants to identify the beneficial owner when requesting corporate data; essentially, it asks them to know the precise information that they are after. Under the draft policy, applicants could get hold of company ownership information only if they were involved in regulatory or legal proceedings about financial crime or a criminal case in which a court has determined that the data could help to solve the investigation. Most alarmingly, the BVI registrar would be required to tip off beneficial owners within five days of an application being made, allowing beneficial owners to liquidate or move assets.
At this stage, we really need to ask whose side are the BVI authorities on. Do they stand with local communities like mine, with Parliament and with my constituents in the fight against corruption, or do they stand with the kleptocrats who are using the property market as a rainy-day fund? I am pleased to see that this is a priority for our Government and our relations with the overseas territories. This Government are pushing for greater transparency from them. I wholeheartedly support the Government in those efforts. I look forward to further updates and further opportunities to speak about the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I will impose an informal time limit of five minutes.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the three Members who have made speeches so far, particularly the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell); he represents a royal borough and I represent a royal town, but this is an issue on which there is huge cross-party agreement. It has already been set out why that agreement exists. We know that this dirty money comes from the drug trade, from the sex trade and from modern slavery. Alas, credible sources indicate that something like 40% of it comes through London, the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies.
Parliament has already decided what should happen. On 1 May 2018, the House added new clause 6 to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, under which all overseas territories must implement open registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2020. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) said, it was meant to be 2019, but because of the hurricanes, Lady Hodge and I agreed when tabling the amendment that it would not be necessary to do it until the end of 2020.
Subsequently, the Foreign Office arbitrarily extended that figure by three years to 2023. On 4 March 2019, in a succession of points of order to the then Speaker, two former Chairs of the Public Accounts Committee—my now noble Friend Lady Hodge and my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) —and two former Secretaries of State for International Development, namely the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn) and myself, made it clear that that had been done by sleight of hand and that the open registers had to be implemented as soon as possible.
Outrageously, we now find that the will of Parliament has been flouted. The letter from the BVI, which I think was received last week, amounts in my view to a contempt of Parliament. The remedy lies with an Order in Council. The Order in Council, which was published on 14 December 2020, insists that the overseas territories must comply with the requirements of section 51 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
The position is very clear. Unless at this summit the overseas territories—we are talking particularly about Cayman and the BVI—say that they will follow the will of Parliament, which is clearly set out in that section of the 2018 Act, the Government must impose an Order in Council in the way that has been agreed. Let us be clear: the Government set out in 2012 the constitutional position on using an Order in Council. None of us wants to do it, but that is what Parliament is now pushed to do. The Government said:
“As a matter of constitutional law, the UK Parliament has unlimited power to legislate for the Territories.”
The overseas territories themselves recognise that they gain hugely from their relationship with the United Kingdom. If they want to travel under our flag—if they want to have the privilege under our monarch—they must accept our values as well. This has gone on far too long. I read that they were suggesting the Foreign Secretary was working to impose these orders in a colonialist way. I cannot think of any other Member of Parliament of whom that is less likely to be true than the current Foreign Secretary.
The brilliant officials in the Foreign Office, who are second to no one in my admiration, have been too willing to keep the peace between the overseas territories and London. They must now ensure that the open registers of beneficial ownership are implemented forthwith, in accordance with the will of Parliament. I very much hope that that will be the result of the summit to which the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater referred.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this crucial debate on tax transparency in the overseas territories, which goes to the heart of three issues that I will cover.
First, there is the matter of tax justice. Reporting from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism only last week found that sanctioned Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich dodged up to £1 billion of UK tax by structuring the ownership of his fleet of yachts and his hedge fund through the British overseas territories. I will bring this to life with the example of Mr Abramovich’s mega-yacht Eclipse.
According to corporate records, Eclipse was owned directly by Kane Global Holdings Ltd, which was incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. Kane was, in turn, owned by Lindeza Worldwide Ltd, incorporated in the BVI. Lindeza was owned by Electus Investments Ltd, held on trust in Cyprus and the BVI. Above Electus sat the Sara Trust, registered in Cyprus. Finally, there was the ultimate beneficial owner: Mr Roman Abramovich.
Let us be clear. This is a complex web of deceit intended to prevent taxes from being paid where they are due. It is conducted on an industrial scale and involves an army of immoral corporate service providers, lawyers and accountants who are only too happy to facilitate such demands. But this is not just about Mr Abramovich. Indeed, journalists in the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project have reported on dozens of cases involving suspicious transactions linked to high-profile businesspeople from Bulgaria, Georgia and further afield, all systematically channelling money and assets into these jurisdictions to escape their tax liabilities in the UK and elsewhere.
It is simply unacceptable—indeed, it is morally indefensible—that we find ourselves in a situation in which a number of British overseas territories continue to incorporate entities hiding behind the corporate veil of secrecy. All the while, our constituents pay their taxes in good order.
Secondly, there is a corrosive impact on the social contract between British citizens and the state. If it matters so much to the UK Government that UK taxpayers front up to fund our public services, why does it not matter that the mega-rich are exploiting the overseas territories? How can we look our constituents in the eye and say in good faith, “We are pursuing every avenue to pump much-needed resources into our NHS, our police service and our schools,” when the mega-rich and multinational corporations can escape their taxes by squirrelling their money away in British territories offshore?
Thirdly, at a time when the Government are focused on driving economic growth and unleashing the full potential of the private sector, we find ourselves in the bizarre situation that continued secrecy in the overseas territories places an immense regulatory burden on UK firms. As a former financial crime compliance officer in two UK banks, I know only too well the huge investment put into armies of due diligence professionals, who, unable to ascertain the ultimate beneficial ownership of entities incorporated in the overseas territories, spend an inordinate amount of time chasing their tails. That has a simple economic cost for UK businesses and consumers, and the British economy. That burden stands firmly at odds with the Government’s drive to deregulate and to drive up competitiveness.
We have a moral obligation, a societal imperative and an economic impetus to act. That is why we must have publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership in the British overseas territories. That certain overseas territories continue to hide, obfuscate and deny, and prevent long-overdue reform, is a stain on our collective conscience.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), confirmed in response to a written question of mine:
“We consider publicly accessible registers of beneficial ownership (PARBOs) a vital tool for combatting financial secrecy.”
He went on to say:
“I have been clear to OT leaders that full PARBOs are our ultimate expectation.”
The Minister for Security confirmed in response to another written question I submitted that the UK Government
“expects implementing legitimate interest access is an interim step to publicly accessible beneficial ownership registers”.
I sincerely hope that the Exchequer Secretary can provide similar assurances today that His Majesty’s Government are committed to working across Government to drive transparency in tax matters, and that it remains the case that they expect publicly accessible beneficial ownership registers to be implemented in the overseas territories.
Time is of the essence. We cannot allow secrecy to be used as a barrier to tax justice. That much I owe to my Bolton West constituents and we, as parliamentarians, owe to this country at large.
Several hon. Members rose—
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Order. With a time limit of four minutes, I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He has been a relentless campaigner on this issue for a number of years, and I hope that now he is in this place he can make a real impact on it.
I want to make a few short points. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is about fairness, and the injustice that many of our constituents feel about this issue. Those who are most able to pay are also most able to avoid paying. The hon. Member spoke about his constituent being chased by HMRC, yet on a global scale it feels like that is not being done in the same way. The sense of injustice really burns people up. This is about restoring trust in politics and our economic system more broadly. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater talked about how global corruption gets to hide under this, too. That underlines the unfairness of this issue.
My second point is about revenue. It is clear that our public services are under strain, and we should be able to assess what tax is owed and collect it. That is a very basic principle. I know that the Government have done some good work in terms of investing in HMRC. I welcome that and hope that it can be a model for what we do on a global scale, so that we go further and faster on this issue, too.
My final point, and the one I wanted to make the most, is about Britain’s responsibility on this global issue. It is a global problem, but it is one in which Britain has a really important role to play. We have probably all seen the statistic that one third of all global tax dodging is enabled by British overseas territories. I share the frustrations of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about British overseas territories not necessarily abiding by their constitutional demands or sharing the values we have been talking about today. It is incumbent on us to make sure that our Government act in the fullest and strongest possible way.
I hope the Minister will pledge that Britain will show leadership on this issue, that the Government will ensure that the deadlines are met quickly, and that trusts will be added to the register. I will add that Britain has shied away from participating in discussions on the UN tax convention. One way that we can play a leadership role on this issue is by choosing to be an active participant in that conversation and showing our leadership there too.
In conclusion, this is the right thing to do, it is in our interests to do it, and it is on Britain in particular to lead on it.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for bringing forward this excellent debate.
Extreme inequality is out of control around our world. Oxfam says that the global wealth of almost 5 billion people—the poorest 60%—has fallen; meanwhile, the world’s richest men have more than doubled their fortunes since 2022. It says that global poverty will not be eradicated for another 230 years; meanwhile, the world could have its first trillionaire within a decade. Here in our country, just like overseas, millions are suffering daily hardship. This is personal for me. I grew up in poverty, with parents who I cared for unable to get a foot in the door of public services starved of resources. That is why I stood to be a Labour MP who campaigns against tax secrecy.
A contributor to the widening inequality crisis is a rigged, secretive global tax system. Let us be clear: tax abuse and corruption go hand in hand. Leaked confidential documents dating back over a decade reveal a global spider’s web of secretive offshore tax havens. The super-rich and multinational corporations evade scrutiny and avoid paying their fair share of tax. In the words of the previous World Bank president, corporate tax dodging is
“a form of corruption that hurts the poor”.
Poor countries and poor people in our society need us to raise our voices to end the era of tax havens. This Government can do something about it. Ministers have set out our transparency expectations to the overseas territories. In his reply to the written question I tabled in October about our recent steps to ensure that OTs establish public registers, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), noted that he had written to OT Governments to
“set out UK transparency expectations”,
and say that
“full public accessibility remains our expectation.”
He also said:
“Access filtered to those with ‘legitimate interest’ should be delivered to a clear timetable, as an interim step”
and he outlined to the OTs
“a set of minimum requirements that UK Government would expect to see in any ‘legitimate interest’ regime.”
The Government are resetting our relationship with the overseas territories and seeking a partnership based on transparency and accountability—but, as we heard, it takes two to dance. Regrettably, OTs such as the British Virgin Islands are doing all they can to fall short and continuing to facilitate illicit finance and kleptocracy, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). It is a scandal. The public want solutions, and that is why we MPs are calling for action.
While the rich get richer and the rest fall back, public services collapse and public spaces rot. Populists do not create grievances, but they do not half exploit them. There are plenty of grievances to exploit in our country because of the toxic cocktail of inequality and austerity, which has been worsened by tax secrecy and tax avoidance. Our determination as a Government to be on the side of working people will require decisive action towards tax secrecy and tax avoidance. We can secure tax justice, and when we do, we will help the hungry to be fed and help families to know that politics is once again on their side.
I commend the fact that the Foreign Secretary will hold a global summit, but I would call it an anti-corruption summit, to follow the one that happened 10 years ago. I believe that is what we need.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this timely discussion; it is a pleasure to take part in it.
New research from the Tax Justice Network reveals something that should shame us all: the world’s three biggest corporate tax havens—the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda—are all British overseas territories. Those havens cost the world an estimated $84 billion in lost corporate tax revenue every year. That is money that could be spent on hospitals, schools and infrastructure.
What is more, thanks to financial secrecy, we still do not know the full scale of the problem. The UK Government cannot shrug off responsibility. British overseas territories are subject to UK law in key areas, as has been outlined by others, and in 2018 Parliament passed legislation requiring them to implement public registers of company ownership—a crucial step in tackling financial crime. However, successive Governments have failed to enforce that. This new Government must finally act and ensure that overseas territories meet the same transparency standards as the UK.
We must go further. Labour should back global efforts such as the UN tax convention to crack down on tax avoidance. We need a fairer tax system that works for everyone, not just the super-rich. That means reversing Conservative tax cuts for big banks, raising the digital services tax on tech giants and closing capital gains loopholes exploited by the wealthiest. A 4% tax on FTSE 100 share buy-backs would also encourage real investment in jobs and growth.
The British Virgin Islands case is a warning. Just last month, a jury in Florida convicted the former BVI Premier of drug trafficking and money laundering while in office. If the public register of company ownership had been in place as promised, that corruption would have been far harder to conceal. The Government assured Parliament that all overseas territories would have those registers by the end of last year. Where are they? Do the Government recognise their responsibility to tackle financial crime?
Then there is the issue of Russian assets. Transparency International UK has identified over £830 million-worth of UK-linked property belonging to individuals close to Putin and/or accused of corruption. While £7 billion in Russian assets has been frozen in the overseas territories, we must ask: what is being done to prevent Russian oligarchs from hiding their money there, and when will we start seizing those funds and using them for Ukraine’s reconstruction?
For too long, Britain has been the laundromat for dirty money. Under both Labour and Conservative Governments, our country has allowed autocrats and oligarchs to buy up property, infrastructure and influence. We have seen vital assets sold off to companies with links to the Chinese Communist party. That has made some people in Britain very rich, but it has come at a huge cost to our security, our economy and our sovereignty. The Liberal Democrats will put an end to that. We will close the loopholes in economic crime legislation, strengthen the register of beneficial ownership and give agencies such as the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office the resources they need to go after economic criminals.
The scale of tax avoidance is staggering. The OECD estimates that global profit shifting costs between $100 billion and $240 billion a year. The Tax Justice Network puts the figure even higher, at $348 billion annually. Where does 23% of that profit shifting happen? Through the UK, its Crown dependencies and the overseas territories: the so-called network of British tax havens.
The UK must be a leader in international tax reform. The Liberal Democrats have long called for an end to non-dom status, and we remain committed to the UN sustainable development goals. It is time that we worked with our international partners to clamp down on corporate tax avoidance and raise the global minimum corporation tax to 21%. Fair taxation is not just about economics; it is about justice. Let us ensure that everyone from the biggest corporation to the wealthiest elite pays their fair share.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner, as it is to respond to the debate called for by the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). This will be one of those debates where there is ferocious agreement in all parts of the House. Before I get into the substance of my speech, it is worth mentioning that there is a legitimate role for tax havens. The City of London will certainly have investment funds located in tax havens in order to have tax neutrality for investors into those funds. Those investors have to pay their domestic tax, but they do not want to pay tax on the funds as they go forward.
It is also worth mentioning that, in some cases, small islands will look to see if they can grow their economies by providing financial services. Again, if they are doing that in a legitimate way, and one that fits with the wishes of the world, there is nothing wrong with that. But that is the important point: it is incredibly important that what they are doing is seen to be legitimate, right and fair for everybody else.
Turning to the substance of the debate, as hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there is still much work to be done on tax transparency. As part of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, overseas territories were required to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership. In 2020, the previous Government set out in a written ministerial statement the expectation that the territories would implement registers by the end of 2023.
Intense discussions took place with overseas territories over the implications of the ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union that publicly accessible registers were contrary to the EU charter of fundamental rights. Despite some overseas territories’ raising concerns over the ruling, which does not apply to the UK, the previous Government were satisfied with the lawfulness of the public register. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. However, the impact of the EU ruling has led to delays in the overseas territories implementing the public register. The previous Government made it clear that they expected progress in 2024, yet, as we would all agree, progress remains far too slow.
Too many jurisdictions under our responsibility continue to allow opaque corporate structures that enable illicit finance to flow unchecked. That is particularly concerning in the light of recent geopolitical developments, including the increase in money from sanctioned countries—Russia —being laundered through offshore entities. I am looking forward to the Exchequer Secretary updating us on what progress has followed the November joint ministerial council for overseas territories. The Opposition welcome the communiqué, which reaffirmed the Government’s expectation that overseas territories should provide public access to beneficial ownership registers. It is right to commend Gibraltar and Montserrat, which have implemented public registers, and the Falkland Islands and St Helena, which have pledged to do so by April 2025. It is worth adding that, while not directly legislated for by the UK, the Crown dependencies—Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—have made commitments to greater transparency, too.
Mark Garnier
I hope my right hon. Friend will not mind if I do not, because I am conscious that we have very little time.
It remains a concern that major financial centres such as the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands remain resistant to these measures. Will the Exchequer Secretary provide an update on what pressure the UK Government are placing on those overseas territories that are not fully complying with the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018?
The UK Parliament has sovereign powers over the overseas territories. Therefore, we cannot allow any jurisdiction to water down these proposals. The previous Government allowed for an interim step of a legitimate interest model, which would allow access to beneficial ownership information by members of the public with a legitimate interest in accessing it, including media and civil society organisations involved in the fight against illicit finance and money laundering. Even if that might be a stepping-stone for some overseas territories, I hope the Minister will confirm that it should not dilute efforts to create a public register.
Overseas territories must align with the UK’s own standards and comply with UK law. What is the Government’s plan if further delays occur? Will there be consequences for non-compliance? This Government and the previous Government have repeatedly stated that tackling illicit finance is a priority—we agree on that point. The current Foreign Secretary has declared:
“The golden age of money laundering is over”.
I am sure the Minister would agree that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies must not become the weak link in the fight against money laundering and corruption.
Karl Turner (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind hon. Members that the Member in charge normally has two minutes at the end to wind up. I would be grateful if the Minister bore that in mind.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Thank you for that reminder about the timing, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) on securing this debate, and Members on all sides of the House on their contributions, including the hon. Member for frozen asset—as she styled herself in her contribution—my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake).
I know Members have questions that they have raised about the implementation of specific tax transparency measures in the overseas territories, and our continuing collaboration with them. I will turn to those in a moment, but I will briefly set out the broader constitutional context of the overseas territories and their role in international tax.
We continue to support the overseas territories to build vibrant and sustainable economies, including through encouraging greater links to the UK economy. The overseas territories are an integral part of the British family. The inhabited overseas territories are self-governing jurisdictions with democratically elected Governments and responsibility for fiscal matters. They have responsibility for setting their own policies, including determining their own tax rates in line with international standards. They are also committed to upholding international tax standards, and the UK Government are actively working with them to ensure they meet their commitments.
Domestically, the UK has implemented a range of policies to prevent shifting of profits to low-tax jurisdictions, including controlled foreign corporation rules, anti-hybrid rules, and corporate interest restriction rules. All overseas territories with an international financial centre have joined the UK in becoming members of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on base erosion and profit shifting. That signals their ongoing commitment to implementing the BEPS minimum standards.
All overseas territories with financial centres have also committed to the global forum’s exchange of information and request standard, and to implementing the OECD’s common reporting standard and cryptoasset reporting framework for the automatic exchange of information for tax purposes. Treasury officials regularly engage with counterparts in Crown dependencies and overseas territories to exchange best practice and technical expertise in adhering to international tax standards.
Where overseas territories need more in-depth support, HMRC works with them to build capacity and to comply with international standards. Support from HMRC has in recent years helped Montserrat and Turks and Caicos to be found fully compliant with the EU’s code of conduct group.
Of course, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the Government are also determined to close the tax gap in the UK public finances, and tackling offshore tax non-compliance is a key part of that. HMRC can access relevant information from overseas territories through the automatic exchange of information, and exchange on request, for tax investigations.
At the autumn Budget, the Government announced a record package to close the tax gap. That included our commitment to growing HMRC’s compliance workforce by 5,000 people over the next five years. As part of that, we are expanding HMRC’s international compliance work, supported by a campaign of targeted external recruitment of senior tax experts. Before the end of this financial year, HMRC expects to have recruited more than 50 experienced international tax professionals through that exercise, which will more than double the number achieved in the previous year. Tackling illicit finance in the UK and its overseas territories and Crown dependencies is a priority for the Government.
Mr Mitchell
Can the Minister provide an undertaking that if the overseas territories, and indeed the Crown dependencies, do not co-operate with what Parliament has set out—the Order in Council published in draft already—the Government will exercise their rights on behalf of Parliament and issue this Order in Council?
James Murray
I had a feeling the right hon. Gentleman was going to ask a question along those lines. I will answer it in a moment.
I welcome the commitment made by the leaders of the overseas territories in November 2024, which has been referred to by hon. Members, to support the Foreign Secretary’s campaign against illicit finance. As part of that commitment, boosting corporate transparency through registers of beneficial ownership is a core aim in helping to tackle money laundering and tax and sanctions evasion and in helping to foster an open and trusted business environment. Fully public registers of beneficial ownership are already in place in the UK, Gibraltar and Montserrat.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater asked about the register of overseas entities and whether trust-owned property would be included on those registers. If an entity from an overseas territory owns property in the UK, they would fall under the requirements and would need to declare their beneficial owners. That includes beneficial owners associated with a trust. The register of overseas entities is also being updated this year to grant, on application, access to trust information that is currently restricted from the public.
At the joint ministerial council in November 2024, the Government confirmed their expectation that fully public registers of beneficial ownership would be implemented by overseas territories. The Falkland Islands and St Helena committed to implement those by April 2025. Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Anguilla and the Turks and Caicos Islands committed to implement registers of beneficial ownership accessible to those with a legitimate interest by June 2025 at the latest. This approach offers the maximum possible degree of access and transparency while retaining the necessary safeguards to protect the right to privacy in line with respective constitutions.
Progress towards delivering on these commitments is under way. The UK Government have been clear to the elected leaders of the overseas territories that we expect registers to be delivered by the deadline and in line with the standard agreed at the joint ministerial council. UK Government officials continue to work in partnership with officials in the overseas territories to support the implementation of these registers, and last month they wrote with further clarifications on the minimum requirements for registers of beneficial ownership. The Government are continually reviewing this issue and will consider carefully what steps to take if registers are not delivered on time and to an acceptable standard. We are aware of the consultation document released by the British Virgin Islands and continue to engage with BVI to improve its proposal, in line with the agreement made at the joint ministerial council.
The UK, the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories stand united in condemning the Russian Government’s aggression. We have been working in lockstep to enforce UK sanctions, which hon. Members have mentioned, including by freezing assets across the Crown dependencies and overseas territories. That has helped to implement the UK Government’s sanctions regime, which, to date, has amounted to $9 billion-worth of assets. To support this, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has provided significant technical assistance to build capacity in the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
As we have heard in this debate, the push for tax transparency in the overseas territories generates strong views. I recognise that there have been instances in which high net worth individuals and multinational entities have sought to hide their assets and profits in the overseas territories. The overseas territories are working to implement international tax transparency standards and work closely with us to identify tax abuse, to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, and to enforce UK financial sanctions. We must continue to work towards greater tax transparency in the UK, the overseas territories and globally. That includes greater transparency regarding company ownership, as well as the ownership of assets such as cryptoassets and real estate, to ensure the public can see who the beneficial owners are. I thank you again, Mr Turner, I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater in particular for securing this debate.
Joe Powell
I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for his response, and I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. This has been a productive and constructive debate. There has been a lot of agreement on the problem. We heard the tax case very strongly, particularly from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). We heard the housing and communities case, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake). We heard the economic growth case from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), the poverty and inequality case from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and the constitutional case from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), which took us through the history over the past decade of missed deadlines and opportunities for the action we are talking about to be taken.
I hesitate to say that this will be the last debate in this place on this topic—I suspect it will not be—but I welcome the Exchequer Secretary’s commitment. I think he was being quite polite when he said that the Government wished to see an improvement to the BVI’s proposal. The BVI needs to go back to the drawing board and bring back a proposal fully in line with the principles that Parliament concluded were the best action for this problem, which is full public registries of beneficial ownership.
In final closing, I thank the spokespersons for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, the hon. Members for Lewes (James MacCleary) and for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), respectively, for their constructive contributions. I agree that there may be some legitimate uses of offshore tax centres, in particular for companies in multiple jurisdictions, but the heart of the problem is that the BVI, the Caymans, Bermuda and others are still far too susceptible to very serious illicit crime.
If there is one message that I would like all hon. Members to take home it is that this is not an abstract problem. It is not something just to do with billions and trillions in the financial system. It is about constituents who are being chased by HMRC who feel the double standards; it is about our housing crisis and empty properties; it is about our sanctions, their enforcement, and support for autocrats such as Putin, and it is about our public finances.
We have a strong case for why we need to act, and I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for his outlining of the next steps. The June deadline to see progress from the overseas territories is imminent, but as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, this area is littered with missed deadlines. We need a proper deterrent from the British Government to say what will happen if the territories pass those deadlines and no action has been taken.
Mr Mitchell
We have another three minutes, so I am keen to help out.
To be clear, we are talking here about dirty money and the source of this money—money stolen from Africa and from Africans. The baddies have all the best tunes, and they have the money to get their way, so the forces of law and order are always fighting to catch up. It is important to emphasise the open registers. The mist fell from all our eyes when, thanks to the BBC and The Guardian newspaper, the Paradise and Panama papers were published. They showed that, without this open register approach, we cannot join up the dots to see what those clever villains are doing, catch them, trap the money and hopefully return it. The hon. Gentleman and I agree completely, but I hope that we can carry the Government with us.
Joe Powell
I thank my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, where we talk about this a lot.
Exhibit A is the UK public register of company ownership—when introduced, we were told that there would be all sorts of capital flight and that people would not come here to buy properties and invest, but that has simply not been the case. The register has now been in existence for several years. In fact, many of the countries that were the source of corruption and dirty money are now implementing public registries: Nigeria, Indonesia and Kenya, to name but a few.
We know action is possible—Gibraltar and others among the overseas territories have already done it—and it is now incumbent on the others to follow suit. I implore the Government to keep the pressure on so that we do not have to come back too many more times to debates such as this to re-analyse the same problem that we all agree is there, when we know the policy solution is within our grasp.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tax transparency in the Overseas Territories.