Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 26 February 2025

[Graham Stringer in the Chair]

Online Safety Act: Implementation

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

10:00

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I am grateful for the opportunity to open the debate. Let me start with some positives. The Online Safety Act 2023 is certainly not the last word on the subject, but it is, in my view, a big step forward in online safety, providing a variety of tools that allow the regulator to make the online world safer, particularly for children. I remain of the view that Ofcom is the right regulator for the task, not least because it can start its work sooner as an existing regulator and given the overlap with its existing work—for example, on video-sharing platforms. I also have great regard for the diligence and expertise of many at Ofcom who are now charged with these new responsibilities. However, I am concerned that Ofcom appears unwilling to use all the tools that the Act gives it to make the online world a safer place, and I am concerned that the Government appear unwilling to press Ofcom to be more ambitious. I want to explain why I am concerned, why I think it matters and what can be done about it.

Let me start with what I am worried about. There was a great deal of consensus about the passing of the Online Safety Act, and all of us involved in its development recognised both the urgent need to act on online harms and the enormity of the task. That means that the eventual version of the Act does not cover everything that is bad online and, of necessity, sets up a framework within which the regulator is required to fill in the gaps and has considerable latitude in doing so.

The architecture of that framework is important. Because we recognised that emerging harms would be more clearly and quickly seen by online services themselves than by legislators or regulators, in broad terms the Act requires online services to properly assess the risk of harms arising on their service and then to mitigate those risks. My concern is that Ofcom has taken an unnecessarily restrictive view of the harms it is asking services to assess and act on and, indeed, a view that is inconsistent with the terms of the Act. Specifically, my conversations with Ofcom suggest to me that it believes the Act only gives it power to act on harms that arise from the viewing of individual pieces of bad content. I do not agree, and let me explain why.

With limited exceptions, if an online service has not identified a risk in its risk assessment, it does not have to take action to reduce or eliminate that risk, so which risks are identified in the risk assessment really matters. That is why the Act sets out how a service should go about its risk assessment and what it should look out for. For services that may be accessed by children, the relevant risk assessment duties are set out in section 11 of the Act. Section 11(6) lists the matters that should be taken into account in a children’s risk assessment. Some of those undoubtedly refer to content, but some do not. Section 11(6)(e), for example, refers to

“the extent to which the design of the service, in particular its functionalities”

affects the risk of adults searching for and contacting children online. That is not a risk related to individual bits of content.

It is worth looking at section 11(6)(f), which, if colleagues will indulge me, I want to quote in full. It says that a risk assessment should include

“the different ways in which the service is used, including functionalities or other features of the service that affect how much children use the service (for example a feature that enables content to play automatically), and the impact of such use on the level of risk of harm that might be suffered by children”.

I think that that paragraph is talking about harms well beyond individual pieces of bad content. It is talking about damaging behaviours deliberately instigated by the design and operation of the online service, and the way its algorithms are designed to make us interact with it. That is a problem not just with excessive screen time, on which Ofcom has been conspicuously reluctant to engage, but with the issue of children being led from innocent material to darker and darker corners of the internet. We know that that is what happened to several of the young people whose suicides have been connected to their online activity. Algorithms designed to keep the user on the service for longer make that risk greater, and Ofcom seems reluctant to act on them despite the Act giving it powers to do so. We can see that from the draft code of practice on harm to children, which Ofcom published at the end of last year.

This debate is timely because the final version of the code of practice is due in the next couple of months. If Ofcom is to change course and broaden its characterisation of the risks that online services must act on—as I believe it should—now is the time. Many of the children’s welfare organisations that we all worked with so closely to deliver the Act in the first place are saying the same.

If Ofcom’s view of the harms to children on which services should act falls short of what the Act covers, why does it matter? Again, the answer lies in the architecture of the Act. The codes of practice that Ofcom drafts set out actions that services could take to meet their online safety duties. If they do the things that they set out, they are taken to have met the relevant safety duty and are safe from regulatory penalty. If in the code of practice Ofcom asks services to act only on content harms, it is highly likely that that is all services will do because it is compliance with the code that provides regulatory immunity. If it is not in the code, services probably will not do it. Codes that ignore some of the Act’s provisions to improve children’s safety means the online services that children use will ignore those provisions, too. We should all be worried about that.

That brings me to the second area where I believe that Ofcom has misinterpreted the Act. Throughout the passage of the Act, Parliament accepted that the demands that we make of online services to improve the safety of their users would have to be reasonable, not least to balance the risks of online activity with its benefits. In later iterations of the legislation, that balance is represented by the concept of proportionality in the measures that the regulator could require services to take. Again, Ofcom has been given much latitude to interpret proportionality. I am afraid that I do not believe it has done so consistently with Parliament’s intention. Ofcom’s view appears to be that for a measure to be proportionate there must be a substantial amount of evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness. That is not my reading of it.

Section 12 of the Act sets out the obligation on services to take proportionate measures to mitigate and manage risks to children. Section 13(1) offers more on what proportionate means in that context. It states:

“In determining what is proportionate for the purposes of section 12, the following factors, in particular, are relevant—

(a) all the findings of the most recent children’s risk assessment (including as to levels of risk and as to nature, and severity, of potential harm to children), and

(b) the size and capacity of the provider of a service.”

In other words, a measure that would be ruinously expensive or disruptive, especially for a smaller service, and which would deliver only a marginal safety benefit, should not be mandated, but a measure that brings a considerable safety improvement in responding to an identified risk, even if expensive, might well be justified.

Similarly, when it comes to measures recommended in a code of practice, schedule 4(2)(b) states those measures must be

“sufficiently clear, and at a sufficiently detailed level, that providers understand what those measures entail in practice”,

and schedule 4(2)(c) states that recommended measures must be “proportionate and technically feasible”, based on the size and capacity of the service. We should not ask anything of services they cannot do, and it should be clear what they have to do to comply. That is what the Act says proportionality means. I cannot find in the Act support for the idea that we have to know something will work before we try it in order for that action to be proportionate and therefore recommended in a code of practice. Why does that disagreement on interpretation matter? Because we should want online platforms and services to be innovative in how they fulfil their safety objectives, especially in the fast-moving landscape of online harms. I fear that Ofcom’s interpretation of proportionality, as requiring evidence of effectiveness, will achieve the opposite.

There will only be an evidence base on effectiveness for a measure that is already being taken somewhere, and that has been taken for long enough to generate that evidence of effectiveness. If we limit recommended actions to those that have evidence of success, we effectively set the bar for safety measures at current best practice. Given the safe harbour offered by measures recommended in codes of practice, that could mean services being deterred from innovating, because they get the protection only by doing things that are already being done.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for securing this incredibly important debate. He has described in his very good speech how inconsistency can occur across different platforms and providers. As a parent of a 14-year-old daughter who uses multiple apps and platforms, I want confidence about how they are regulated and that the security measures to keep her safe are consistent across all platforms she might access. My responsibility as a parent is to match that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly highlights how Ofcom’s interpretation of the Act has led to inconsistencies and potential grey areas for bad faith actors to exploit, which will ultimately damage our children.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have to balance two things, though. We want consistency, as he suggests, but we also want platforms to respond to the circumstances of their own service, and to push the boundaries of what they can achieve by way of safety measures. As I said, they are in a better position to do so than legislators or regulators are to instruct them. The Act was always intended to put the onus on the platforms to take responsibility for their own safety measures. Given the variety of actors and different services in this space, we are probably not going to get a uniform approach, nor should we want one. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the regulator needs to ensure that its expectations of everyone are high. There is a further risk not that we might just fix the bar at status quo but that, because of the opportunity that platforms have to innovate, some might go backwards on new safety measures that they are already implementing because they are not recommended or encouraged by Ofcom’s code of practice. That cannot be what we want to happen.

Those are two areas where I believe Ofcom’s interpretation of the Act is wrong and retreats in significant ways from Parliament’s intention to give the regulator power to act to enhance children’s online safety. I also believe it matters that it is wrong. The next question is what should be done about it. I accept that sometimes, as legislators, we have no choice but to pass framework legislation, with much of the detail on implementation to come later. That may be because the subject is incredibly complex, or because the subject is fast-moving. In the case of online safety, it is both.

Framework legislation raises serious questions about how Parliament ensures its intentions are followed through in all the subsequent work on implementation. What do we do if we have empowered regulators to act but their actions do not fulfil the expectations that we set out in legislation?

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is not only about Ofcom but regulators more widely, and their ability to be agile? Does he believe them to be more risk-averse in areas such as digital technology, relying on traditional consultation time periods, when the technology is moving way faster?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman identifies a real risk in this space: we are always playing catch-up, and so are the regulators. That is why we have tried—perhaps not entirely successfully—to design legislation that gives the regulators the capacity to move faster, but we have to ask them to do so and they have to take responsibility for that. I am raising these points because I am concerned that this particular regulator in this particular set of circumstances is not being as fleet of foot as it could be, but the hon. Gentleman is right that this is a concern across the regulatory piece. I would also say that regulators are not the only actor. We might expect the Government to pick up this issue and ensure that regulators do what Parliament expects, but in this area the signs are not encouraging.

As some Members in Westminster Hall this morning know because they were present during the debates on it, elsewhere in the Online Safety Act there is provision to bring forward secondary legislation to determine how online services are categorised, with category 1 services being subject to additional duties and expectations. That process was discussed extensively during the passage of the Act, and an amendment was made to it in the other place to ensure that smaller platforms with high incidences of harmful content could be included in category 1, along with larger platforms. That is an important change, because some of the harm that we are most concerned about may appear on smaller specialist platforms, or may go there to hide from the regulation of larger platforms. The previous Government accepted that amendment in this House, and the current Government actively supported it in opposition.

I am afraid, however, that Ofcom has now advised the Government to disregard that change, and the Government accepted that advice and brought a statutory instrument to Committee on 4 February that blatantly contravenes the will of Parliament and the content of primary legislation. It was a clear test case of the Government’s willingness to defend the ambition of the Online Safety Act, and I am afraid they showed no willingness to do so.

If we cannot rely on the Government to protect the extent of the Act—perhaps we should not, because regulatory independence from the Executive is important—who should do it? I am sure the Minister will say in due course that it falls within the remit of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. I mean no disrespect to that Committee, but it has a lot on its plate already and supervision of the fast-moving world of online safety regulation is a big job in itself. It is not, by the way, the only such job that needs doing. We have passed, or are in the process of passing, several other pieces of similar framework legislation in this area, including the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the Data (Use and Access) Bill and the Media Act 2024, all of which focus on regulators’ power to act and on the Secretary of State’s power to direct them. Parliament should have the means to oversee how that legislation is being implemented too.

Many of these areas overlap, of course, as regulators have recognised. They established the Digital Regulation Co-operation Forum to deal with the existing need to collaborate, which of course is only likely to grow with the pervasive development of artificial intelligence. Surely we should think about parliamentary oversight along the same lines. That is why I am not the first, nor the only, parliamentarian to be in favour of a new parliamentary Committee—preferably a Joint Committee, so that the expertise of many in the other place can be utilised—to scrutinise digital legislation. The Government have set their face against that idea so far, but I hope they will reconsider.

My final point is that there is urgency. The children’s safety codes will be finalised within weeks, and will set the tone for how ambitious and innovative—or otherwise—online services will be in keeping our children safe online. We should want the highest possible ambition, not a reinforcement of the status quo. Ofcom will say, and has said, that it can always do more in future iterations of the codes, but realistically the first version will stand for years before it is revised, and there will be many missed opportunities to make a child’s online world safer in that time. It is even less likely that new primary legislation will come along to plug any gaps anytime soon.

As the responsible Secretary of State, I signed off the online harms White Paper in 2019. Here we are in 2025, and the Online Safety Act is still not yet fully in force. We must do the most we can with the legislation we have, and I fear that we are not.

Given the efforts that were made all across the House and well beyond it to deliver the best possible set of legislative powers in this vital area, timidity and lack of ambition on the part of Ministers or regulators—leading to a pulling back from the borders of this Act—is not just a challenge to parliamentary sovereignty but, much more importantly, a dereliction of duty to the vulnerable members of our society, whose online safety is our collective responsibility. There is still time to be braver and ensure that the Online Safety Act fulfils its potential. That is what Ofcom and the Government need to do.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. and right hon. Members to bob if they wish to speak. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at half-past 10 so I will impose a four-minute limit on speeches. That gives very little scope for interventions though it is up to hon. Members whether to take them, but I may have to reduce the time limit.

09:51

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), the former Secretary of State, for securing today’s important debate.

I am proud to have worked on the Online Safety Act alongside colleagues in the women’s and children’s sectors, and to have successfully pushed, in particular, for stronger age verification measures to stop children from accessing harmful pornography. Given the abundant harms within the online world and the detrimental impact they have on young people’s development, the need for strong regulation was aways going to be necessary. Tech companies have no incentive to care for children when their profit motives compel them to create addictive content, purposely designed to keep kids hooked.

However, regulation is only ever as good as its ability to be enforced. It is clear from my conversations with those who care about children’s online safety that the regulator, Ofcom, needs to do better in many areas. Adequate regulation has never been needed more than now, in an era of a roll-back in online giants’ desires to protect and safeguard their users—from X to Meta—given changing political winds. Self-regulation has clearly failed and we must ensure that Ofcom’s implementation of the Online Safety Act is not loose enough to allow that to continue. I agree with the concerns raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam; what we have seen so far from Ofcom demonstrates that Parliament needs to be doing more to ensure that its will is stamped on the regulatory framework that Ofcom has been forming.

There are many areas where we need to go further. One of the most concerning trends online that we have witnessed has been the rise of extremist misogyny and a culture that incites violence against women and girls more generally. Last year, 77% of girls and young women aged seven to 21 experienced online harm; that includes things such as revenge porn, which affects one in 14 adults. The revenge porn helpline has experienced an average 57% increase in cases each year since it was founded a decade ago. It has also witnessed a 400% rise in cases involving deepfake images. AI is powering today’s misogyny and abuse and more must be done.

That is why I have been campaigning for a ban on nudification apps that create deepfake pornography, by and large, of women and girls without their consent. Issues such as those need to be tackled now and not stewed over for another decade. I am concerned that Ofcom’s age assurance and children’s access codes of practice for part 5 providers—that is, dedicated pornography sites—do not include a clear and measurable definition of what highly effective age assurance means in practice. Without a stringent definition, pornography sites will likely shirk responsibility for implementing a robust system, and Ofcom’s ability to enforce action will be made more difficult. Moreover, we know that the Act did not look at content regulation. That is why we are all eagerly anticipating Baroness Bertin’s pornography review, which I believe is due to be published this week by the Government. Ensuring that online content is aligned with that of offline, regulated by the British Board of Film Classification, will be key.

We must look to expand age assurance to the level of the app store. App stores were not included in the Online Safety Act. Indeed, Ofcom has been given two years to conduct a review into app stores. I strongly believe that that needs to be brought forward. App stores are not adequately ensuring that apps are age-appropriate, and more needs to be done to stop children downloading apps that can lead them to dark and harmful places. As a Parliament, we must be willing to bring forward legislation that complements and builds on the Online Safety Act, to ensure that Ofcom acts to protect our women and children.

09:55

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this vital debate. When he introduced the online safety White Paper in 2019, it was because we could not rely on big tech to regulate what was hosted on their platforms; it simply wasn’t working. Under the previous Government, we saw the tragic death of Molly Russell in 2017 and the complete failure of tech firms to adequately police illegal content on their sites, let alone the lawful but awful content that was being fed to our children from dawn till dusk.

Here we are, six years later, to discuss how the Online Safety Act is being implemented. In the meantime, virtually every Minister who has held the baton for this issue, including myself for a couple of years, has used this piece of legislation as almost a silver bullet for every harm that is encountered in the online world. I have often said that if ever there was a piece of legislation for which the phrase, “We mustn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” was invented, it is this one. We now need to hit the ground running and ensure that the legislation is implemented fast and effectively, in line with the sentiment that gave rise to it, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam suggested. Every day that Ofcom does not enforce its age assurance requirements for porn providers and illegal harms codes is a day that young children across the country are at serious risk of having their childhood stolen.

The Online Safety Act was a complicated and groundbreaking piece of legislation. No other Government in the world at the time had attempted to regulate the internet so effectively. I was pleased that when the Bill came back from the House of Lords, it was not just the size of the platforms that was taken into account when deciding the category of service, but the level of risk they represented, which is also really important. It is important to recognise that other countries and the EU have legislated while we have refined, and now we need to act.

I am glad that since the Act was passed in October 2023, Ofcom has worked at pace to bring forward codes on areas such as children’s safety duties, illegal harms and age assurance, which will have a massive and tangible impact. Ofcom intends to consult on further proposals to strengthen the codes this spring, and it is really important that that focuses on the issues we are seeing, such as hash-matching for terrorist and intimate image abuse content. That is particularly important considering the emergence of deepfakes as the new front in the war against women and girls—99% of pornographic images and deepfakes are of women.

In the light of this increasingly agile, polarising and inventive online world, I am concerned by reports in the media that the Government have decided to put the drive to keep protections up to date with tech developments on ice. There are reports in The Telegraph that Elon Musk is pushing for the Act to be watered down as part of a bargain to avoid trade tariffs. We are all looking for reassurance that, after so many years of work on this legislation by so many people, the Government will not water down or somehow filter its protections.

The Government have acknowledged that there has been an increase in suicides among young people, with suicide-related internet use found in 26% of deaths in under-20s. They made a manifesto commitment to build on this Act, and they must not row back on that. We cannot give up the fight to make the digital world a more pleasant and user-friendly place. We must never forget that if internet companies were doing what they say they are to implement their own terms and conditions, this legislation would not even be necessary, and the Government need to hold them to account.

09:55

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. My congratulations to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this important debate.

Online safety and the wellbeing of our children and young people in digital and online spaces are issues that guide many of us in the House, across the parties, and across the country. I speak only on my own behalf, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children’s online safety, I believe that the Online Safety Act is landmark legislation that has the potential to transform the safety of children and young people in the online world and I applaud the Government’s commitment to creating the safest possible environment for our children, especially in the face of the growing dangers that lurk in the online space.

The Act is designed to tackle the pervasive issues of child sexual abuse material and online grooming. With provisions such as the requirement for platforms to scan for known child sexual abuse material, it has the potential to reduce significantly the availability of such content. Platforms will now have a legal obligation to take action, including by adopting measures such as hash matching, which will prevent the sharing of known CSAM. This is a major step forward and will undoubtedly save countless children from exploitation.

However, there are some concerns that I wish to raise to ensure that the full potential of the Act is realised. Hon. Members have raised many of them already, but I hope that this will give weight to them, and I hope that Ofcom will be listening to our concerns about the Act’s implementation. One of the most pressing issues raised by experts, including the Internet Watch Foundation, is the interpretation of “technically feasible” in Ofcom’s illegal harms codes. Although the Act requires platforms to take steps to remove illegal content, the codes suggest that services are obliged to do so only when that is deemed technically feasible. That could lead to a situation in which platforms, rather than taking proactive steps to safeguard users, simply opt out of finding innovative solutions to prevent harm.

I do not believe that that is the ambitious, risk-based regulatory approach that Parliament envisaged when it passed the Online Safety Act. These are the same platforms that have spent billions of pounds on R&D developing highly sophisticated algorithms to solve complex technical problems, and effectively targeting ads to drive revenue and serve audiences content that they want to see. They have a global reach: they have the tools, the people and the budgets to solve these problems. Therefore, we must ensure that platforms are incentivised to go beyond the bare minimum and truly innovate to protect our children. I echo the calls from multiple civil society organisations working in this area for us to require platforms to take a safety-by-design approach.

Another serious concern is the potential for platforms to use the safe harbour provision offered by the Act. That would allow companies to claim that they are compliant with the codes of practice, simply by following the prescribed rules and without necessarily addressing the underlying harms on their platforms. As the Internet Watch Foundation has rightly pointed out, it risks leaving platforms operating in a way that is compliant on paper but ineffective in practice.

I also ask Ofcom to look more quickly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) has suggested, at Apple and Google’s app stores. They have a wealth of data and can be effective gamekeepers, particularly on age verification, if they are pressed into service. Finally, I encourage the Government and Ofcom to address more fully the issue of private communications. Many predators exploit private messaging apps to groom children, yet the Act’s provisions on private communications are limited. It is vital that we ensure that private spaces do not become safe havens for criminals and that platforms are held accountable for the spread of CSAM, regardless of whether that occurs in private or public spaces.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can address those points in her response and that they will be kept front of mind by Ofcom, the Government and the tech giants as we all seek to ensure that digital and online spaces, which are increasingly important in all our lives, are safe and secure for our children and young people.

10:03

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for organising this important debate and for his continued work scrutinising this legislation.

The Online Safety Act was a landmark step towards making the internet a safer place, particularly for our children, but its implementation has fallen far short of what Parliament intended, hampered by Ofcom’s slow pace and limited ambition. Initially, the Act was designed to ensure that tech companies take responsibility for protecting users, especially children, from harmful content, but the current approach taken by Ofcom undermines that intent in several ways.

We have waited more than a year for Ofcom to complete its consultation on the illegal content codes of practice, but those codes fail to enforce a robust safety-by-design approach. Instead of proactively mitigating risks, many of its measures focus only on responding to harm after it has already occurred, and the children’s safety codes, which are still in draft, appear to follow a similarly disappointing trajectory. Features such as livestreaming, ephemeral content and recommender algorithms—tools that are frequently exploited for the purpose of online abuse—are also not meaningfully addressed in the current framework.

The Act has significant shortcomings in that it also allows companies to be deemed compliant simply by following Ofcom’s codes, regardless of whether their platforms remain unsafe in reality. This means that tech giants are permitted to hide behind a regulatory shield rather than being forced to address known risks on their platforms; all the while, children continue to be exposed to harm. The Act also explicitly requires protections tailored to different age groups, but in its implementation of it, Ofcom treats a seven-year-old and a 17-year-old as if their online safety needs are identical. In doing so, it has fundamentally failed to recognise how children’s development affects their online experiences and their vulnerabilities.

The action on fake and anonymous accounts has been slow and weak. This was a huge area of focus for parliamentarians before the Act was passed, and Ofcom itself identified it as a major risk factor in crimes such as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, harassment and fraud. As we approach 18 months since the passage of the Act, there has been no change for UK users. Instead of prioritising verification measures, Ofcom has pushed them to a later phase of implementation, delaying real action until at least 2027. That is unacceptable, especially when Ofcom’s own research shows that over 60% of eight to 11-year-olds are active on social media, despite existing age restrictions prohibiting it.

The Government’s and Ofcom’s delays in introducing user identity verification measures are unacceptable. The harms associated with fake and anonymous accounts are deeply personal and painfully real, with millions of Britons suffering from online abuse, scams and harassment each year. I hope the Minister can provide a robust explanation for the timidity and delay, and rule out any suggestion that the delays were a result of lobbying pressures from platforms. The best assurance she could give today would be a commitment that the introduction of verification measures will be brought forward to 2026, so that UK internet users are better protected.

In short, I ask the Minister to recognise the urgency of taking the following action. Ofcom must revise its codes to require proactive risk mitigation; tech companies should not be allowed to claim compliance with the regulatory framework, all the while continuing to expose users to harm; platforms must be held accountable if they fail to meet the real safety standards; and protections need to be specific to different age groups, so that younger children and teenagers receive appropriate levels of safety and access.

10:07

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this important debate. His contribution highlighted why he will continue to be an important voice as we go forwards as a Parliament in doing everything we can to keep young people safe online.

For a long time now, Parliament has regulated to keep young people safe from a whole host of harms, which are often tangible and physical. The precautionary principle has been front and centre of our efforts—almost to a fault sometimes, people might argue—to keep young people safe from harms that they simply should not be exposed to. When we look at online harm, however, it is clear that the precautionary principle has not always been there.

There is a range of reasons for that. I hope hon. Members will not mind me highlighting that, for many of us, the online world was not quite such a big presence in our lived experience growing up. Therefore, when it comes to legislating for the online world, the more recent nature of some of the developments means that the evidence base is inherently slightly more limited. We have to be confident in the principled, risk-based approach to acting, and act when we know it is right to do so.

We have to know that more urgent action in this space is the right thing to do. It is impossible not to be moved by the testimony of parents who have gone through some of the most heartbreaking tragedies as a result of our historical inaction, just as it is impossible for me not to be stirred to act when I visit schools and pupils of all ages consistently raise their own fears and concerns about what they are being exposed to online and its impact on them and their mental health.

Other Members have rightly highlighted some of the shortcomings of the Online Safety Act, but, as the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam pointed out, it is important to note the urgency of using the tools available to us now, given our historical inaction. We must ensure that we have the strongest possible implementation of the Act, which means that the strongest possible children’s code from Ofcom will be front and centre.

As other colleagues have highlighted, there is a whole host of ways in which Ofcom has been far too conservative and limited in its interpretation of the powers that Parliament has given it in bringing forward the children’s code, as well as its wider approach to the Act. As 5rights and others have highlighted, the approach of focusing purely on content, rather than on design and features, means that a whole host of harms, which are explicitly called out in the Act, are not affected.

There is nothing more tragic than the story of Molly Rose. The foundation set up in her name is very clear on the role that algorithms, doom spiralling, and young people consistently being pushed towards some of the most harmful content for them at their age played in what happened to her, and to far too many young people right across the country. In section 11(6)(f) of the Act, Parliament very explicitly made it clear that those features should be considered. Ofcom needs to make sure that that is brought forward, and that the code explicitly considers how technology companies can ensure that safety of features and design is considered right across the age range.

Alongside that, Internet Matters and many other groups have been really clear in pointing out that the current approach to age appropriateness—the flattening when it comes to people over and under 18—and the weak guidance on age verification risks not doing justice to Parliament’s very clear steer in section 12 that content and features should be considered from a risk-based perspective right across the age range. Again, that is a clear area where I think Ofcom could and should do a lot more.

As others including the IWF have pointed out, while some consideration of technical feasibility is obviously needed, the carve-out, as currently drafted, risks being an opt-out and a dilution of the ambition of tech companies in stepping up to the plate and making sure they are playing their part in keeping young people safe online.

There is a lot more we will need to do, and I have no doubt that the curriculum review—that is a separate matter—will be important in making sure we are playing our part in empowering young people to feel more confident and safe in these spaces. I am very glad to be doing this work in a Parliament where there are so many strong voices on this issue. Given its urgency, I really do hope that we can make progress between now and the upcoming children’s code to ensure that we are meeting the need of this moment fully.

10:11

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on introducing the debate. I thank him for all that he has done over the years. We all recognise that. His deep interest in the subject matter was illustrated by the way he set the scene with lots of effect—not that anybody else did not, but he did it exceptionally well.

The Office for National Statistics revealed that 83% of 12 to 15-year-olds now own a smartphone with full internet access. They use them for school, and parents use them to keep an eye on their children through location services. There is a world of good that can be done with a phone; however, we are all aware that there is also a world of harm. When I was a boy, the bullies’ power left them when we left the school gates; now, their reach is vastly extended, and children’s mental health is the price to be paid.

I have spoken on many occasions in the House on this issue and on the Act, and I believe that we absolutely need a new, safe online world for our children. Cyber-bullying, grooming and online exploitation are real. As I highlighted in November, in the last debate on this topic, the Police Service of Northern Ireland revealed that in 2023, crimes involving children being contacted online by sexual predators rose by nearly a third in Northern Ireland. That is a very worrying figure. The scale of this issue is astronomical. I think of how vulnerable and precious our children are, and my heart aches at the number of children whose innocence has been taken from them at an early age. The joy of childhood comes from the magic of innocence, and anyone who takes that, whether by touch or online, is guilty of a crime. The entire purpose of the Act is to protect children, and we must see its full implementation.

More than three quarters of people saw self-harm content online for the first time at the age of 14 or younger, and individuals with a history of self-harm report being 10 years old or younger when they first viewed such content. Without very strict controls, children of any age can view things that simply are not appropriate for their wee minds. I am a great believer that it is parents’ job to do all they can to provide for their child: the love, safety, food, and clothing. That is harder than ever to do in a world that parents cannot access.

I speak as a grandparent who does not have the ability to do the things that others can do. I know that there is this unlimited world of access to unknown things. I am thankful that back home, the Minister of Education, my colleague Paul Givan, is attempting to send the message that online access needs to be curtailed, by investing in a pilot scheme for pouches that children put their phones into while in school. That prevents online access, and it means less distraction too. More than that, it ensures that children begin to learn that their phone does not need to be at their fingertips or at their ear. In fact, perhaps we adults need to remember that as well. Let us be honest: at Prime Minister’s questions, when we look across the Chamber, what will we all be doing? Probably looking at our phones. We should not be doing that; we should be concentrating on the Chamber. The most important thing is the message being sent to children—hopefully it is something that they can take into their working lives, too—that they can switch these things off and learn to reconnect with the real world in front of them. I congratulate the Northern Ireland Minister for doing that.

I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam for the continued and solid work that he has put into this legislation. Children throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be safer and happier for it. I often feel we have one job as a parent: to protect our children and their future. This legislation will hopefully play a part in helping parents to protect the most treasured part of their life, and I will always support that.

10:15

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for his exceptional work and for his collegiate approach to this issue. In the interests of time, I will dive straight into the detail of what Ofcom is at risk of failing on in the implementation of its children’s safety codes.

As a trade union organiser, I know more than most about risk assessments and how they can be used in practice to protect people. A static risk assessment, as is required by the Act, will be used to assess the risk at that point in time; there will be a legal requirement to update or check that assessment within a year of its first iterance. A static risk assessment will assess the risk broadly, and if the online platforms adhere to the assessment, they will be in keeping with the legislation and will be given safe harbour, as has already been covered. That is not sufficient for the cohort of people using the platform at this time. The protection of children codes that are being published in April must require the use of a dynamic risk assessment.

Dynamic risk assessment is used by the Ministry of Defence, the NHS and several other work environments where the cohort they work with is vulnerable or at risk of injury or harm, and/or where the staff are at risk of injury from the work they do. Dynamic risk assessments are updated in real time. If the risk cannot be mitigated in real time, the activity must be stopped. I cannot fathom why these assessments are not being incorporated in the first iterance of the children’s codes. They would require the platforms to act in real time when they see children coming to harm, engaging in harmful behaviours or being exposed to harmful content. We know that myriad problems will arise when the codes are implemented. I believe strongly that if a dynamic risk assessment is included for those who say that they have children on their platforms, children will be safer in real time.

This is important not only because a dynamic risk assessment is enhanced, but because it makes sure that there is a point person responsible for that work. A point person at the platforms is already included in the Online Safety Act, responsible for being in touch with the Government and Ofcom and for implementing the measures in the Act. A DRA would mean that there was a responsible point person looking in real time to protect children. That is the first point.

I have several other points to make, but only a tiny amount of time. First, it is clear to me that functionalities should be included in the scope of the Act. I have spoken to Ofcom and to the platforms about it. The platforms are already including functionalities in their preliminary risk assessments, so their reading of the Act is that functionalities must be included. If they are going further already, I do not know why Ofcom would not stipulate that they continue to do so. Ofcom’s desire to include a toggle on and off mechanism for some of the functionalities is not sufficient to protect children because, as many of us who have been involved in these debates for a long time know, children will just switch them on. It is not sufficient to have a default off option either.

I will also touch on Jools’ law. As we have previously discussed in the Chamber, we need an amendment to make sure that in the tragic event of a child's death, a notice is automatically issued to the regulated online platforms to freeze the child’s accounts to protect them from deletion and to protect the data for the families going through an inquest. I pay tribute to the bereaved families who have worked on this. Finally, on timing, we have heard that any changes to the codes will delay implementation. I do not agree with that.

10:19

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Social media has the power to provide spaces for connection, free speech and content creation that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. I remember what it was like to be a part of the first generation of teenagers to use social media. I hear the likes of MSN, Myspace and Bebo are no longer a thing among the youth, but I understand the joy of platforms like them and why we would not want our parents involved and snooping around on them. None the less, exactly how much space and freedom we should afford teenagers as parents and as society is the subject of intense debate.

When I speak to parents or teachers about social media, they tell me that they are concerned about how much time children spend on their devices, who they are speaking to and the fear that comes from not knowing what they are watching and reading. That is no surprise, because we as adults are struggling on the same platforms in the same way, and there is very little reassurance that the experience that young people get is much different from our own. The violence, the pornography, the hate—we all see it, and they see it too.

Just a few weeks ago, there was a horrific stabbing in my constituency involving a teenage boy. The video was posted all over social media within minutes. It kept popping up in my feed on Facebook, as it was shared across local groups, and I was tagged in the video on X. The video depicted the whole scene, unfiltered, without a warning. My thoughts went to the victim’s family and to the young teenagers at the college around the corner, who I am sure will have been watching it, too. I do not think I am imagining it when I say that, not long ago, a video like that simply would not have got around as quickly or been seen as frequently as that one. It would have been taken down, at least eventually, but with the purposeful rolling back of moderation by giants like Meta and X, violent content is not just becoming more frequent, it is becoming normalised.

How have we got here? Ultimately, it is because we have allowed the tech giants to become too powerful, with regulation arriving too slowly and without enough teeth. Once upon a time, the greatest minds took up careers in law and medicine, but now the big money and prestige is in big tech, an industry that, on the face of it, sells us nothing, but while we do not pay for their services with money, we pay for it with our attention. The longer they can keep us looking at their platforms; the more ads we see, and the more money they make, so we have the world’s most talented people working out the circuitry of our brains and creating products that are, by design, addictive. What we look at does not matter, only that we are looking, so there is no inherent commercial incentive to fix the problem of dangerous and harmful content.

Just imagine if all that energy and talent was directed into fail-proof age verification, taking fake accounts down, and other safety-by-design measures. Tough law and regulation is our only answer. The concern expressed in this debate is that the Online Safety Act was watered down on its way through Parliament, and further weakened by Ofcom’s guidance; my fear now is that it is under further threat, as in trade negotiations with the US this tech bro-fuelled Trump presidency may demand a further weakening.

As it stands, small companies are already off the hook. It does not matter how harmful the content is as long as its user space is small. The large companies have the legal representation and increasing soft power in practice to avoid compliance, and we are already seeing the consequences of that. Will the Government give us assurances in this debate that, as the mood music in America is to backslide on protections, the UK will stand strong? Will the Government commit to do the opposite of backsliding, to engage with children’s charities and other campaigners who have deep concerns about the gaps in the existing legislation and regulation by Ofcom, and to work to strengthen those protections further in the coming year?

It sounds very obvious, but the kids of today will soon become adults. The world that surrounds them as children will shape their views as adults. One of the most depressing things I have read recently is that teenage girls are the group most likely to be victims of domestic abuse. That is attributed in part to the rise of misogynistic content. If we fail to get the most profitable companies in the world to act, we fail everybody.

10:23

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank you for chairing this debate, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on bringing this debate to Westminster Hall. It is a subject we have talked about many times.

I want to make a number of points. The first is about safety by design. Page 1 of the Act states that the internet should be “safe by design”, yet everything that has happened since in the Act’s implementation, from the point of view of both Ofcom and the Government in respect of some of the secondary legislation, has not been about safety by design. It has been about regulating specific content, for example, and that is not where we should be. Much as I was happy that the Online Safety Act was passed, and I was worried about the perfect being the enemy of the good and all that, I am beginning to believe that the EU’s Digital Services Act will do a much better job of regulating, not least because the Government are failing to take enough action on this issue.

I am concerned that Ofcom, in collaboration with the Government, has managed to get us to a situation that makes nobody happy. It is not helpful for some of the tech companies. For example, category 1 is based solely on user numbers, which means that suicide forums, eating disorder platforms, doxing platforms and livestreaming platforms where self-generated child sexual abuse material is created are subject to exactly the same rules as a hill walking forum that gets three posts a week. In terms of proportionality, Ofcom is also failing the smallest platforms that are not risky, by requiring them to come to a three-day seminar on how to comply, when they might be run by a handful of volunteers spending a couple of hours a week looking after the forum and moderating every post. It will be very difficult for them to prove that children do not use their platforms, so there is no proportionality at either end of the spectrum.

In terms of where we are with the review, this is a very different Parliament from the one that began the conversations in the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill. It felt like hardly anybody in these rooms knew anything about the online world or had any understanding of it. It is totally different now. There are so many MPs here who, for example, have an employment history of working hard to make improvements in this area. As the right hon. and learned Member said, we now have so much expertise in these rooms that we could act to ensure that the legislation worked properly. Rather than us constantly having to call these debates, the Government could rely on some of our expertise. They would not have to take on every one of a Joint Committee’s recommendations, for example, but they could rely on some of the expertise and the links that we have made over the years that we have been embedded in this area to help them make good decisions and ensure some level of safety by design.

Like so many Members in this place, I am concerned that the Act will not do what it is supposed to do. For me, the key thing was always keeping children safe online, whether that is about the commitments regularly given by the Government, which I wholeheartedly believe they wanted to fulfil, about hash matching to identify grooming behaviours, or about the doxing forums or suicide forums—those dark places of the internet—which will be subject to exactly the same rules as a hill walking forum. They are just going to fill in a risk assessment and say, “No children use our platform. There’s no risk on our platform, so it’s all good.” The Government had an opportunity to categorise them and they choose not to. I urge them to change their mind.

10:28

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate.

We have heard some consistent themes coming through. We have heard about Ofcom perhaps misinterpreting what the House intended with the Act. We have heard about the importance of the Ofcom code of practice, how it is constructed and how it drives online platforms’ behaviour. We have heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) about the importance of conformity across different platforms. We have heard that regulators might not be fulfilling the expectations of this House. We have also heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) about lawful but awful content and about how we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think there is a feeling that the Act does what it does, but that the interpretation has not been what was hoped for and that there is still much more to do. We heard from the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) about the “legal but feasible” loophole, and also about bringing in safety by design, which became a consistent theme throughout the rest of the conversations. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) talked about the design to protect children and the framework’s lack of mitigation on livestreaming, and said that seven-year-olds and 17-year-olds are treated the same. That is clearly not right.

The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) impressed upon us the urgency and importance of the children’s safety codes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) cited the astonishing fact that 83% of 10 to 15-year-olds have phones—that is an amazing proportion—and also mentioned cyber-bullying.

Other hon. Members spoke about other areas, but the same things came up. As a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and, until recently, a tribunal member with the telecoms regulator—that responsibility has now moved to Ofcom—I have seen the importance of the codes of practice and how long it takes to revise them. Thirty years in the telecoms industry showed me how tough age assessment can be. I have also spent time delivering app stores, but before the age of Google and Apple phones.

It is clear that the hard-won amendment to include smaller sites with harmful content has been lost through its exclusion from the statutory instrument. In the Bill Committee, the Minister said that we must do everything in our power, and that there is much more to do. We have heard a lot about what needs to be done, and we urge the Government to do it. We urge them to look again at the exclusion of small but harmful sites and to continue to look at how we can improve the implementation of safety by design.

10:31

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this timely debate. His wealth of knowledge on this topic is clear, and his voice in pursuing the most effective iteration of the legislation has been constant.

The previous Government passed the world-leading Online Safety Act, which places significant new responsibilities and duties on social media platforms and search services to increase child safety online—aims that all Members can agree upon. Platforms will be required to prevent children from accessing harmful and age-inappropriate content, and to provide parents and children with clear and accessible ways to report problems online when they arise.

The evidence base showing that social media is adversely impacting our children’s mental health is growing stronger. The Royal Society for Public Health says that about 70% of young people now report that social media increases their feelings of anxiety and depression. It is for those reasons that Conservative Ministers ensured the strongest measures in the Act to protect children.

The Act places duties on online platforms to protect children’s safety and put in place measures to mitigate risks. They will also need to proactively tackle the most harmful illegal content and activity. Once in force, the Act will create a new regulatory regime to significantly improve internet safety, particularly for young people. It will address the rise in harmful content online and will give Ofcom new powers to fulfil the role of the independent regulator. Fundamentally, it will ensure services take responsibility for making their products safe for their users.

I note that the Government have said that they are prioritising work with Ofcom to get the Act implemented swiftly and effectively to deliver a safer online world, but I recognise the concerns of parents and campaigners who worry that children will continue to be exposed to harmful and age-inappropriate content every day until these regulations come into force. Will the Minister acknowledge those concerns in her remarks?

The Act places new duties on certain internet services to protect users from illegal content on their platforms. The purpose of those illegal content duties is to require providers of user-to-user and search services to take more responsibility for protecting UK-based users from illegal content and activity that is facilitated or encountered via their services.

In December, Ofcom published its finalised illegal harms codes of practice and risk assessment guidance. The codes of practice describe the measures that services can take to fulfil their illegal content duties, and they recommend that providers of different kinds and with different capacities take different steps proportionate to their size, capacity and level of risk.

The codes recommend measures in areas including user support, safety by design, additional protections for children and content moderation or de-indexing. Many of the measures in the draft codes are cross-cutting and will help to address all illegal harms. Certain measures are targeted at specific high-priority harms, including child sexual abuse material, terrorism and fraud. Those include measures on automated tools to detect child sexual abuse material and for establishing routes so that the police and the Financial Conduct Authority can report fraud and scams to online service providers. The included measures will also make it easier for users to report potentially illegal content.

Ofcom has also published guidance on how providers should carry out risk assessments for illegal content and activity. Providers now have three months to complete their illegal content risk assessment. Can the Minister update the House on whether the completion of the risk assessments will coincide with the codes of practice coming into force?

Another important milestone was the publication of Ofcom’s children’s access assessment guidance last month. Services will have to assess whether their service is likely to be accessed by children and, once the protection of children codes have been finalised by the summer, must put in place the appropriate protections, known as age assurance duties.

All services that allow pornography must implement by July at the latest highly effective age assurance to ensure that children are not normally able to access pornographic content. Together, the illegal harms and child safety codes should put in place an important foundation for the protection of users. For example, children will be better protected online with services having to introduce robust age checks to prevent children seeing content such as suicide, self-harm material and pornography, and having to tackle harmful algorithms. Illegal content, including hate speech, terrorist content and content that encourages or facilitates suicide should be taken down as soon as services are aware of it. Women and girls will be better protected from misogyny, harassment and abuse online.

The Government have said they are keen for Ofcom to use its enforcement powers as the requirements on services come into effect to make sure that the protections promised by the Act are delivered for users. Samaritans has called on the Government and Ofcom to

“fully harness the power of the Online Safety Act to ensure people are protected from dangerous content”.

Will the Minister confirm that the Government will fully back Ofcom in its enforcement of the illegal harms and child safety codes?

There are concerns that Ofcom appears to be relying on future iterations of the codes to bring in the more robust requirements that would improve safety. Relying on revision of the codes to bring them up to the required standard will likely be a slow process. The requirement to implement initial codes and guidance is significant and is unlikely to allow capacity for revision. Furthermore, the Secretary of State’s ability to stipulate such revisions could hamper that. To that end, it is essential that the first iteration of the codes of practice is robust enough to endure without the need for revision in the short term. Although that might be difficult to achieve in an environment that moves as quickly as the digital space, it must be strived for, lest we end up with legislation that does not hold online platforms to account and does not protect victims of online harms as it should.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that the online world is a safe place for our children. We also have a responsibility to ensure that online platforms take their obligations seriously. I am pleased that the previous Government’s Online Safety Act delivers on both those points. I urge the Minister to ensure that it is fully implemented as soon as possible.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have gained a considerable amount of time because of disciplined interventions and short speeches. I ask the Minister to ensure that there is a small amount of time at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

10:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) for securing this debate on the implementation of the Online Safety Act. I know that he has been following the Bill throughout its passage and has been a critic of every Minister, even his Government’s Ministers, whenever the Bill was watered down or delayed, so I expect him to hold all of us to account. I am grateful to him and all the hon. Members who have spoken this morning. The Government share their commitment to keeping users safe online. It is crucial that we continue to have conversations about how best to achieve that goal.

The Online Safety Act lays the foundations for strong protections against evil content and harmful material online. It addresses the complex nature of online harm, recognising that harm is not limited to explicit content and extending to the design and functionality of online services. We know that the legislation is not perfect. I hear that at every such debate, but we are committed to supporting Ofcom to ensure that the Act is implemented quickly, as this is the fastest way to protect people online. 2025 is the year of action for online safety, and the Government have already taken a number of steps to build on Ofcom’s implementation of the Act. In November last year, the Secretary of State published the draft “Statement Of Strategic Priorities for online safety”. That statement is designed to deliver a comprehensive, forward-looking set of online safety priorities for the full term of this Government. It will give Ofcom a backing to be bold on specific areas, such as embedding safety by design, through considering all aspects of a service’s business model, including functionalities and algorithms.

We are also working to build further on the evidence base to inform our next steps on online safety, and I know that this issue was debated earlier this week. In December, we announced a feasibility study to understand the impact of smartphones and social media on children, and in the Data (Use and Access) Bill, we have included provisions to allow the Secretary of State to create a new researcher access regime for online safety data. That regime is working to fix a systemic issue that has historically prevented researchers from understanding how platforms operate, and it will help to identify and mitigate new and preventable harms. We have also made updates to the framework, such as strengthening measures to tackle intimate image abuse under the Online Safety Act, and we are following up on our manifesto commitment to hold perpetrators to account for the creation of explicit, non-consensual deepfake images through amendments to the Data Bill.

We are also building on the measures in the Online Safety Act that allow Ofcom to take information on behalf of coroners. Through the Data Bill, we are bringing in additional powers to allow coroners to request Ofcom to issue a notice requiring platforms to preserve children’s data, which can be crucial for investigations into a child’s tragic death. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) raised Jools’ law, of which I am very aware, and I believe that she is meeting Ministers this week to discuss it further.

Finally, we recently announced that, in the upcoming Crime and Policing Bill, we are introducing multiple offences to tackle AI sexual abuse, including a new offence for possessing, creating or supplying AI tools designed to generate child sexual abuse material.

Members have raised the issue of the Act’s implementation being too slow. We are aware of the frustrations over the amount of time that it has taken to implement the Online Safety Act, not least because of the importance of the issues at hand. We are committed to working with Ofcom to ensure that the Online Safety Act is implemented as quickly and effectively as possible.

[Lola McEvoy]

On implementation, would the Minister give clarity about the watermark for re-consultation and the point of delay of implementing the children’s codes under the Act? Amendments could be made to the children’s codes and I do not think they would trigger an automatic re-consultation with platforms. Could the Minister elaborate on where the delay would come from and how much scope Parliament has to amend those codes, which will be published in April?

[Feryal Clark]

Ofcom has had to spend a long time consulting on the codes to ensure that they are as proofed against judicial review as possible. Any re-consultation or review of the codes will result in a delay, and the best way to ensure that we can protect children is to implement the Act as soon as possible. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that both Ofcom and the Secretary of State have said that this is not a done deal; it is an iterative process, so of course we expect those codes to be reviewed.

As I said, Ofcom is moving forward with implementation of the Act. In a matter of weeks we will start to see, for the first time, safety duties making a material difference to online experiences for adults and children. Platforms are already duty-bound to assess the risk of illegal content and, with a deadline of 16 March, to complete risk assessments. Once legal harm codes come into effect from 17 March, Ofcom will be able to enforce legal safety duties. Shortly following that in April, Ofcom will publish the child safety codes and associated guidance, starting the clock for services to assess the risk of content harmful to children on their platforms. The child safety duties should be fully in effect by the summer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington also raised the issue of dynamic risk assessment. I understand that she is in conversation with Ofcom and Ministers on that. I will await the outcome of those discussions. The implementation of the Act will bring in long overdue measures, such as preventing children from accessing pornography and legal content encouraging suicide, self-harm or eating disorders.

I have heard concerns raised by hon. Members regarding Ofcom’s approach, particularly to harmful functionalities and safety by design. We understand there is still a lot of work to be done, which is why the Secretary of State’s statement of strategic priorities places a high importance on safety by design. However, it is important not to lose sight of the positive steps we expect to see this year under the Act. For instance, Ofcom’s draft child codes already include specific measures to address harmful algorithms, among other safety recommendations. We expect Ofcom will continue to build on those important measures in the codes.

Questions were asked about whether the Government have plans to water down the Act. I can categorically state that there are no plans to water down the measures. The Secretary of State has made it very clear that any social media company that wants to operate in our society will have to comply with the law of the land. Whatever changes are made in other jurisdictions, the law of the land will remain.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

The Minister might be about to come to the point I want to raise with her, which is about proportionality. Will she say something about that? I am keen to understand whether the Government accept Ofcom’s understanding of the term—that proportional measures are those measures that can be evidenced as effective. I gave reasons why I am concerned about that. I want to understand whether the Government believe that that is the correct interpretation of proportionality.

[Feryal Clark]

I was about to come to the point that the right hon. and learned Member raised about the digital regulation Committee. I have had a brief conversation with him about that, and agree about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the implementation of the Online Safety Act. I welcome the expertise that Members of both Houses bring. Select Committees are a matter for the House, as he is aware.

We will continue to work with the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to support their ongoing scrutiny, as well as other parliamentary Committees that may have an interest in the Act. The Act requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regime, two to five years after the legislation comes into force. We will ensure that Parliament is central to that process. I encourage the right hon. and learned Member to continue to raise the matter with the right people.

Most hon. Members raised the issue of apps. Ofcom will have a duty to publish a report on the role of app stores and children’s accessing harmful content on the apps of regulated services. The report is due between January ’26 and January ’27. Once it is published, the Secretary of State may, if appropriate, make regulations to bring app stores into the scope of the Act. The timing will ensure that Ofcom can prioritise the implementation of child safety duties. I will write to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam on the issue of proportionality, as I want to ensure that I give him the full details about how that is being interpreted by Ofcom.

We fully share the concerns of hon. Members over small platforms that host incredibly harmful content, such as hate forums. These dark corners of the internet are often deliberately sought out by individuals who are at risk of being radicalised.

[Martin Wrigley]

If the Government fully support our concerns about small but harmful sites, will the statutory instrument be reworked to bring them back into category 1, as the Act states?

[Feryal Clark]

The Government are confident that the duties to tackle illegal content and, where relevant, protect children from harmful content will have a meaningful impact on the small but risky services to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Ofcom has created a dedicated supervision taskforce for small but high-risk services, recognising the need for a bespoke approach to securing compliance. The team will focus on high-priority risks, such as CSAM, suicide and hate offences directed at women and girls. Where services do not engage with Ofcom and where there is evidence of non-compliance, Ofcom will move quickly to enforcement action, starting with illegal harm duties from 17 March, so work is being done on that.

The comprehensive legal safety duties will be applied to all user-to-user forums, and child safety duties will be applied to all user-to-user forums likely to be accessed by children, including the small but high-risk sites. These duties will have the most impact in holding the services to account. Because of the deep concerns about these forums, Ofcom has, as I said, created the small but risky supervision taskforce. For example, Ofcom will be asking an initial set of firms that pose a particular risk, including smaller sites, to disclose their illegal content risk assessment by 31 March.

The Government have been clear that we will act where there is evidence that harm is not being adequately addressed despite the duties being in effect, and we have been clear to Ofcom that it has the Government’s and Parliament’s backing to be bold in the implementation of the Online Safety Act. We are in clear agreement that the Act is not the end of the road, and Ofcom has already committed to iterating on the codes of practice, with the first consultation on further measures being launched this spring. The Government remain open minded as to how we ensure that users are kept safe online, and where we need to act, we will. To do so, we must ensure that the actions we take are carefully considered and rooted in evidence.

[Lola McEvoy]

Will the consultation this spring for the next iterations of the codes include consultation with parliamentarians, or is it solely with platforms?

[Feryal Clark]

I expect any consultation will have to go through the Secretary of State, and I am sure it will be debated and will come to the House for discussion, but I will happily provide my hon. Friend with more detail on that.

I am grateful to all Members for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to working with the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, and hopefully he can secure the Committee that he has raised.

[Monica Harding]

Can the Minister explain what she meant when she said that Ofcom had to ensure that the codes were as judicial review-proofed as possible? Surely Ofcom’s approach should be to ensure that the codes protect vulnerable users, rather than be judicial review-proofed.

[Feryal Clark]

The point I was trying to make was that Ofcom is spending time ensuring that it gets the codes right and can implement them as soon as possible, without being delayed by any potential challenge. To avoid any challenge, it must ensure that it gets the codes right.

10:56

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in the debate. We have talked about the consensus there was in the passage of the Online Safety Bill. I think it is fair to say that that consensus is broadly still present, based on what Members have said this morning, and I am grateful for it.

There is a need to get this Act implemented. I accept what the Minister says about that, and others have made the same point: we do not want to make the best the enemy of the good, and there is always a trade-off between, on the one hand, getting the particular mechanisms that we know will protect people online in place as swiftly as possible, and on the other hand, making them as extensive and effective as possible.

However, given how long it takes for Parliament to make change—I make no apologies for repeating this point—we need to make the best use of the legislation that we have. I have not made a case this morning for extending the parameters of the legislation; I have made a case for using the parameters we already have, which Parliament has already legislated into being and which we have passed over to the regulator for it to use.

I accept that regulation and legislation is not passed for effect; we do it so that it can work. We do it not to make ourselves feel better, but to make the lives of our constituents better, so the Minister is right to say that the usability of all this should be at the heart of what we are interested in. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) that Ofcom should not be predominantly focused on insulating itself from judicial review. As a former Law Officer, I think that is an impossible task anyway. This legislation and the regulation that follows it will be challenged—the online platforms have every incentive to challenge it. We cannot be so terrified of that prospect that we are unwilling to extend the parameters of the regulation as far as we believe they should go. That is why I think everybody needs to be a tad braver in all this.

Finally, I simply want to repeat the point that many of us have made, which is that we need as Parliament to have a way of keeping our eye on what is happening in this space. These debates are great, but shouting at Ofcom through the loudhailer of Westminster Hall is not as effective as a Committee set up to do this in a more structured and, frankly, a more productive and consensual way. That is the gap that exists in the landscape of parliamentary oversight, and as we develop more and more digital regulation, as we have to, and as AI advances, we will have to fill that gap. I simply say to the Government that filling it sooner rather than later would be wise.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the implementation of the Online Safety Act 2023.

High Street Bank Closures

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered high street bank closures and banking hubs.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I want to bring to the Chamber a really important issue: high street banking, which in my view, has been in absolute crisis with the precipitous decline in branches operating in communities up and down this country for the past four decades. Data from the British Banking Association shows that the number of branches in 1986 was more than 21,000; at the beginning of 2025, there were fewer than 5,000. Many smaller communities no longer have a high street bank.

Banking habits have clearly changed, with many people now using internet banking, but the loss of high street banks is a bitter blow to many people, particularly vulnerable groups in our communities, such as the aged, the frail and people with disabilities, all of whom are at serious risk of financial exclusion. For example, according to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, in my Blyth and Ashington constituency there are 3,420 people living with sight loss. That is extraordinary. For blind and partially sighted people who struggle with online access, bank closures are—at the least—devastating, and that is just one prime example of the groups of people affected by the disappearance of banks from the high street.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a very important subject for the hon. Gentleman and for me as well. We have lost 11 banks in my constituency. They put forward the idea of banking hubs; well, we have got one, and there is a second one on the way, but the fact is, it takes ages for them to arrive. Does he agree that what we need is urgency on the substitutions, whether they are banking hubs or alternatives, such as in post offices? If we do not have that for rural communities, then we do not have anything at all.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree. I have already mentioned the number of closures; I am not sure whether a post office can act as a back-up, because we have seen closure after closure of post offices, until eventually a number of the constituencies up and down the country have no facilities whatever.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The towns of Stoke, Longton and Fenton in my constituency will soon have no banking facilities at all. Link’s assessment of a banking hub is that it considers an hour’s bus journey, and a return cost of almost £5, to be acceptable parameters to say that my constituents can access banks in Hanley. Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we need not only to roll out banking hubs more quickly, but have the criteria change so that every town in every community can access a banking hub or high street banking facility?

[Ian Lavery]

That was the whole idea of bringing the debate to this Chamber. The issue is the inflexibility of Link and of the Financial Conduct Authority regulations, which means that even the smallest, most minute detail can mean that people are not going to have a banking hub. That really needs changing, for the sake of our communities. It impacts local businesses, which are also at risk of adverse effects as a result of bank closures, with reduced ability to manage their cash flows and, of course, reduced productivity due to time spent away while accessing banking services.

In my constituency, the coastal village of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea was left without a bank in 1999, meaning that for more than 25 years, local people have been forced to travel in order to access banking facilities. That is the point I make to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I want to use Bedlington as an example in my contribution, too. It is Northumberland’s fourth-largest town, and in May this year, it will be left without a bank, following TSB’s decision to close its branch on Front Street West. In recent years, bank branches in Blyth and Ashington, the two largest towns in my constituency, have also closed. While they are both currently served by banking providers, I can only wonder how long that will last.

The case of Bedlington is particularly worrying. It is a proud community with a rich and in many ways unique history. During the flight northwards from William the Conqueror’s army, the body of St Cuthbert is said to have been rested at what is now St Cuthbert’s church. The town and its surrounding areas were once an exclave of County Durham, then it developed into an industrial centre, with its ironworks and multiple coal mines. The loss of heavy industry has left a huge legacy, similar to that in many other post-industrial communities. When passing through that lovely place, Bedlington, people might not understand that unique history, with its traditions and cultures, because it has got a picturesque high street. The town contains pockets of significant deprivation, and the erosion of services in Bedlington makes the lives of those who are struggling ever more difficult.

Following the announcement that the final high street bank would close, my office triggered a review with Link into access to cash. Immediately after that, Link contacted my office to apologise about the fact that a review had not been automatically triggered, as would be the normal process. We were told that the review had been fast-tracked through the initial stages and a visit was arranged by one of the Link community assessment managers.

I met with the community assessment manager in Bedlington prior to the general election, following his assessment, and I could not have felt more positive about his reflections. He was an excellent ambassador for Link and, indeed, a good, intelligent man. He had been up Bedlington’s main street and spoken to the people there long before I arrived. He was gushing in his praise for Bedlington high street, describing it as a handsome high street that was well frequented, with a mixture of local businesses. He was unable, at that stage, to confirm that a banking hub would 100% be recommended, but it was heavily suggested that that would be the preferred solution.

I was absolutely delighted at that because, as I think everybody will agree, there is a great place for banking hubs. They are a good, progressive move forward. It is inflexibility that is the huge problem.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. We all understand that when a business is struggling, it has to cut costs, but these banks are closing branches despite making billions of pounds of profit. By pulling out of towns and the high street, those banks no longer provide a service for their customers—for the elderly, the disabled and local businesses. Knowing that banks need a licence to operate, does he agree that, to solve this growing problem, there needs to be a condition that, to get that licence, banks need to serve all of their customers and actually remain on the high streets?

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely reasonable, is it not?

The decision by Link or the Financial Conduct Authority is basically transactional. It does not really look at the community factors—it looks at a lot of different factors, but those do not count as points toward the overall result or announcement that there will be the go-ahead for additional services. That must change. It must embrace everything that is happening; it cannot be because the banks are leaving, which they have been on pace because of the profit margins. We have to start looking after communities and vulnerable people—the frail, the elderly and the disabled—in places like that and we need to change the regulations.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate and for his powerful points. On the point that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) just made, in recent years my constituency has become a banking desert—literally deprived of banks on high streets. For my neighbours living in Chadwell Heath, the nearest branch is some 40 minutes away and that is probably how long it takes to go from one end of my constituency to the other. Banks are not just profit-making organisations; they also offer a valuable service, and that has to be recognised. Does my hon. Friend agree that local banks as well as post offices and bank hubs have to be left on our high streets because of the service they provide, particularly to deprived communities?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. It is essential and that is the whole reason behind this debate. I will get back to that.

I was more or less guaranteed, unofficially, that we had qualified in Bedlington. I was dumbfounded to see, when Link’s assessment was published some months later, that it suggested no additional services—no action to support the elderly woman from Bedlington station who banked in person on a weekly basis on Front Street, used the opportunity to speak with trusted members of staff without worrying about falling prey to scammers, met her friend for a coffee on Bedlington Front Street and took the opportunity to visit some local shops and spend a few pounds in the process.

There was no assessment of the impact on that woman, on other residents or on local businesses of allowing high street banking to be lost with no banking hub provided; no assessment of the impact on people like her who are now travelling to a neighbouring town and spending their money there instead. On inspection, it appeared that we had been turned down because there was a bank in Cramlington located 0.1 km closer to Bedlington Front Street, as the crow flies, than the regulations suggested were appropriate. That is why we were declined—because of 0.1 km—and it is time that that sort of thing was addressed.

We need to look at issues in the community such as deprivation, elderly people and those who, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, are in desperate need of facilities on the high street. I immediately applied to Link and, as advised by its parliamentary liaison officer, I submitted an appeal, which was summarily dismissed without much discussion. I emphasised that Bedlington, as the fourth-largest town in Northumberland, should not need to use facilities in other towns.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about a corner of the county that we share, and I am interested to hear his reflections on the communities that lose out on access to banking services. Does he agree that, with the shameful decision to close three branches in my constituency, there is a real risk that businesses in the Tyne valley, as well as elderly and vulnerable people, will lose access to those face-to-face services? Does he also agree that we need to consider the rural hinterland that is served by these larger towns when making these decisions so that rural businesses are not crippled by bank closures.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend from the neighbouring constituency to mine. Urban and rural areas face the same issues; we are being abandoned on the high street by these large banks. That is why we need to get the criteria changed to make sure that we allow Link—

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

It will have to be very brief.

[Ellie Chowns]

On the specific point of the criteria, I could not agree with him more. It is really problematic. In my constituency of North Herefordshire, we have a banking hub opening in Leominster, now that Lloyds bank has left. However, in Kington, which does not have a bus service to Leominster, there is a fantastic post office that could be a banking hub, but it has been told that it does not fit the criteria. I do not understand why. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to ask the Government to make sure that these criteria are reassessed, because banking, especially in remote areas, is such an important function for businesses and individuals. We cannot continue with the system as is.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree totally about the transport hubs. We cannot say to an elderly, frail or disabled person, “Get that bus to the next town. It’s only three mile.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned, is it reasonable to say to somebody, “If you can get there within an hour, that means you don’t need a facility.”? The criteria need to be changed.

I will ask the Minister a number of questions that I hope he will consider. I am fully aware that 100 Link hubs have been set up already, 200 are in the system, and it is hoped that there will be 350. That is really positive, but it would still leave behind and abandon lots of communities such as mine in Bedlington. The dealings I have had with Link and the FCA have been perfectly cordial, but wholly and utterly transactional. It is, basically, “Computer says no”. The legislation cannot simply focus on access to cash and ignore the loss of banking services.

I hope the Minister will agree that the current rules leave Northumberland’s fourth-largest town with no bank and no banking hub, and that they are too inflexible. It is within the power of the Government to change the regulations. Will the Minister consider asking Link to look at other community factors when assessing the suitability of a banking hub? Does he agree that all areas are unique, and should not be shoehorned into a rigid process that does not fit them? Does he agree that measuring the distance as the crow flies from the doors of the last bank to close is not reasonable, and takes no account of the distance vulnerable people already have to travel?

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. On the subject of vulnerable people, I want to say that the last two branches in Whitby have announced that they will close, and an adult gaming centre is already looking at the Halifax site. We are getting a temporary banking hub, but does my hon. Friend agree that vulnerable residents rely on having a branch, and that, somewhere along the line, the words “providing a service”, seems to have been lost to banks?

[Ian Lavery]

Unfortunately, my understanding is that high street banks want to centralise in much bigger places and make much higher profits, and do not consider the communities that the two of us serve. Does the Minister agree that the demographics of an area should be of paramount importance when assessing the need for a banking hub, and will he take steps to include that in the criteria? Does he agree that banks should commit to a local service before putting profits before communities? Does he agree that the Government should have the means to intervene in decisions such as the one I described in Bedlington and other Members described in their constituencies? If Northumberland’s fourth-largest town is being failed, something is sadly wrong. The current criteria are simply not fit for purpose. They abandon many of our most vulnerable constituents. A wholesale, root-and-branch review is required, to make life easier, not more difficult, for those we proudly represent.

11:20

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. We can see from the number of Members who have intervened to raise concerns about their constituencies that this issue is widely felt across our country, and the issue resonates deeply with our constituents.

It is a priority of this Government to ensure that all citizens have appropriate access to banking across the UK. As hon. Members have alluded to, banking has changed significantly in recent years thanks to digital innovations, and many people can now bank more conveniently, at any time and in any place, without needing to go to a bank in person. In 2017, 40% of UK adults regularly used banking branches, but by 2022 that figure had fallen to 21%, and in the same year nearly nine in 10 adults used online banking or mobile apps, including, notably, 65% of those aged over 75.

However, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can benefit from banking services. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced funding of more than £500 million in 2025-26 to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. Those initiatives will drive the roll-out of broadband and 4G connectivity to support access to good internet and to plug connectivity black holes across the UK by 2030. More than 86% of UK premises can now access gigabit-capable broadband, which is a huge leap from July 2019, when coverage was just 8%.

Investing in digital infrastructure will improve access to digital banking services, but I assure hon. Members that the Government also understand the importance of face-to-face banking services in communities and high streets across the country. Many of our constituents are particularly concerned about the availability of cash and access to in-person banking services, so the Government are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the UK have access to those banking services and that everyone can contribute to economic growth in local areas and thriving local high streets.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for that point. His brief reference to access to cash is vital, but the word that was missing was “free”: access to free cash. One of the by-products of the closure of high street banks is that the cashpoints that remain tend to have a transaction fee, and that is particularly the case in the communities that can least afford it. That means that people in some parts of my constituency pay up to £3 simply to withdraw their money. For people who do not have a lot to start with, that is a huge barrier to getting the cash they need.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the barriers to people accessing cash—not merely the location of banking hubs or facilities, but financial barriers. There may also be transport barriers to people getting to banking hubs in the first place. I hope to address that briefly in the remainder of my remarks.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

Very briefly.

[Graham Leadbitter]

On the point of geographic vulnerabilities, Aviemore, which many people will know as a major ski resort in Scotland, is pretty remote: it is on a major A-road, but it is in the middle of the Cairngorms. It has lost its last bank, and the nearest is Inverness, which is a 40-minute drive away—if someone has a car and it is not minus 10°, which is quite common in the middle of winter. Does the Minister agree that a degree of common sense needs to be applied by Link when looking at banking hubs—because that common sense is critical in making that assessment and it should not just be a tick-box exercise, as has been alluded to?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman’s point relates to transport links and the accessibility of banking hubs. It links well to the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), which is that a banking hub or banking service on its own might need further infrastructure around it to ensure that people can get there. I hope to address that briefly in just a moment.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs—as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington mentioned—by the end of this Parliament. Banking hubs allow people and businesses to withdraw and deposit cash, deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. Importantly, they also contain rooms where customers can see community bankers to carry out wider banking services, such as registering a bereavement or getting help with changing a PIN. The Government are committed to working with the industry to ensure that banking hubs meet customers’ needs.

Following rules laid out for the Financial Conduct Authority, the roll-out of banking hubs is determined in accordance with legislation. When a bank announces the closure of a branch or a material change of cash access, an assessment will be carried out by Link, which we have heard hon. Members refer to today and is the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. That is an impartial assessment of a community’s access-to-cash needs. Where Link recommends a banking hub, Cash Access UK, a not-for-profit company funded by major UK banks, will provide it. The assessments take into account criteria such as population size, the number of small businesses, and levels of vulnerability. They also consider the distance to the nearest bank branch and the cost and travel time to get there on public transport. Importantly, where the announcement of a bank closure triggers an assessment, the branch cannot close until recommended services have been installed. Any member of the public—including Members of this House—can request an access-to-cash review directly, through the Link website.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington and others have put on record their concerns about the criteria that Link uses to make the assessments. Those concerns are on record through this debate. Any decisions on changes to Link’s assessment criteria are a matter for Link, the financial services sector and the FCA, which oversees the access-to-cash regime. The FCA is required by law to keep its rules under review. It monitors the impact of those rules on an ongoing basis to ensure that they deliver the right outcomes for businesses and consumers.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate. On the point about the criteria, it is difficult to match some of what we know about our own constituencies with some of the criteria that Link deals with, which seem restrictive. Does the Minister agree that the Government have set a target of opening banking hubs, but the Link criteria are not meeting community needs and need to change? Does he agree that that is a priority?

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. As I set out, the Government have committed to 350 banking hubs in the course of the Parliament, but any changes to Link’s assessment criteria are a matter for Link, the financial services sector and the FCA, under the rules set out in legislation.

I will also point to the fact that customers have other options to access everyday banking and cash services. In particular, the Post Office deserves a mention for its extensive presence on the country’s high streets, which ensures that 99% of the UK population live within 3 miles of a post office. Through the Post Office banking framework, 99% of personal banking and 95% of business banking customers can access vital cash withdrawal and deposit facilities at 11,500 post office branches across the country.

We talked a lot about some of the issues with accessing banking services and banking hubs when they are open. It is important to note that in the autumn Budget, we announced £1 billion of investment in support of bus services, which will be crucial in connecting rural areas and small towns and helping people to get to their nearest banking services. In recognition of the fact that each community has individual needs, we have introduced the Bus Services Bill, which will put power over local bus services back in the hands of local leaders. We continue to take action to make sure that high streets and communities across the country can realise their full economic potential.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington for securing this important debate. I welcome the support from him and other hon. Members for the Government’s important work to ensure access to banking for all, and to support our commitment to unlocking the full potential of high streets across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

High Street Rental Auctions

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

10:09

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on high street rental auctions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. As many Members know, our high streets are the beating heart of our communities. They are not simply places where people shop. They are gathering points and cultural centres and they serve as symbols of local identity. They fuel local economies, support countless small businesses and provide many thousands of jobs. They inspire confidence in our communities and encourage residents to stay connected to the areas they live in.

For too long, our high streets have been neglected. They have become defined by the number of empty shop fronts and “to let” signs they sport, rather than by the vibrancy and the footfall that once sustained them. When people stop visiting town centres, antisocial behaviour and crime are allowed to flourish, creating vicious cycles that benefit only those looking to create disorder and discord in our communities.

Town centres were once a great source of pride for our communities, but their decline has had real consequences. We cannot deny that the retail landscape has changed, and it is a challenge to adapt to this new reality. The rise of online shopping, out-of-town retail parks and over a decade of austerity have left town centres struggling to adapt. This is a national story that I am sure Members across the House will recognise, and it is one that characterises our experience in Bournemouth West.

My constituents are rightly frustrated by the state of our town centre. It is the No. 1 issue that people bring up on the doorstep and in conversation. Time and again, I hear that people feel unsafe—they are worried about reports of drug use and homelessness—or that there is nothing for them to do in the town centre. Empty shops, a lack of variety and overall decline have led many people to change the way that they interact with Bournemouth, and sadly, many of my constituents have not visited the town centre in many years due to its falling reputation.

Bournemouth was once known for its vibrant shopping streets, its summer tourism and its cultural heritage. Long-time residents yearn for the days when we could walk down the old Christchurch Road and pop into Beales or Dingles, or head over to the Westover Road, which was often referred to as the Bond Street of Bournemouth, with its luxury brands and high-end goods. That is the Bournemouth I remember from my childhood—a town that was thriving and safe. My parents never thought twice about letting me get on the bus or the train to spend the day in Bournemouth with my friends.

Over the past decade, we have seen an increasing number of shop closures and long-term vacant premises, with no apparent plan for repurposing or reuse. Changes in consumer behaviour, the arrival of Castlepoint—an out-of-town shopping centre—and the cost of living crisis have all had their part to play, and we currently face a staggering 15% vacancy rate of shop fronts, which is far above the national average. The failure to revitalise these spaces has more than just economic consequences; it has major implications for the way people feel about our town.

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on an important issue that is raised regularly with me in Stafford. I have spoken to a local small business owner, Alison, who is concerned about the vibrancy of Stafford high street and told me that a shop nearby had been closed for over two decades. Does my hon. Friend agree that these powers are long overdue and that by giving local authorities greater control, the Government have taken a vital first step towards revitalising our high streets?

[Jessica Toale]

The story my hon. Friend tells about the shop in her constituency is one that I am sure many of us recognise from our own. High street rental auctions can have a transformative effect in many towns around the country, and I will come on to that.

Despite the challenges we face, Bournemouth has much potential and so much to offer. Its beach was recently rated the 12th best in the world by Tripadvisor users. It has amazing examples of heritage architecture just waiting to be repurposed. If we were to design the town of the future, it would have the beautiful gardens that run like a central artery through our town, connecting the beach to the town hall.

I am pleased to say that there are lots of green shoots to celebrate. Bobby’s, in the Square, has been repurposed into a multi-use space, including Patch, a collaborative workplace for small businesses and start-ups. That has huge potential to serve as a community hub, hosting local events—including one that I am hosting next week on women’s safety in the town centre—and providing support to new entrepreneurs. The former House of Fraser building is also being converted, into student accommodation, and its large commercial space is being converted into smaller units, making them more accessible to a wide range of businesses.

The Ivy has arrived. Home-grown businesses such as Bad Hand Coffee and Naked Coffee have transformed unused spaces and are supporting an ecosystem of retail and hospitality. We have a burgeoning tech and creative industries sector, supporting the town and making use of the talent coming out of our world-leading universities and colleges. I will also namecheck Trove, Calabrese, Revival café and Brazilian Snacks. They are all local businesses making an outsize contribution to our high street. I encourage as many of my local residents as possible to rediscover and to champion all the good things that are happening in Bournemouth.

However, the scale of the challenge is still enormous. For too long, Governments have left it to the market, which has seen the managed decline of our high streets. To tackle that challenge, we require urgent action, collaboration between central and local government as well as the private sector, and creativity in how we imagine our high streets and town centres of the future—with a mix of culture, retail, hospitality and community spaces.

That is why I welcome the Government action to introduce high street rental auctions. They are taking the action that the last Government failed to take and giving local authorities the power to bring vacant commercial properties back into use. I am proud that Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has been selected as an early adopter for the scheme.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

We are seeing some really exciting investment in Derby city centre, with a new performance venue, a new business school and the reopening of our market hall, but like so many city and town centres, we struggle with too many empty shops. Does my hon. Friend agree that high street rental auctions could be a really important tool in tackling empty shops, and how does she think that councils can be supported to use these new powers?

[Jessica Toale]

Yes, these auctions are a promising step forward and could be transformational for many towns across the country. I will come on to the local authority points in a moment.

The auctions require landlords to lease properties within a certain timeframe, preventing them from leaving spaces empty for years on end. The time restriction of 365 days in a 24-month period will help to tackle the persistent problem of vacant properties, which is a huge opportunity for communities such as mine in Bournemouth West. By enabling councils to take action, we can reintegrate those spaces into our high streets and bring them back to life.

However, it is crucial that we think about the long-term sustainability of this approach. I have been assured by landlords and agents in my constituency that there is a genuine desire to fill empty commercial properties, but business rates, antisocial behaviour and even parking charges constitute barriers, so to landlords it is important to say that the approach should be a tool of last resort. It is clear that such measures should be used only once a genuinely collaborative and good-faith approach between landlords and councils has been exhausted. The auctions should be seen in the context of other measures to which this Government have committed, ranging from supporting small businesses and tackling crime and antisocial behaviour in our town centres to the long-term reform of business rates. I am pleased that we are making progress on all these issues.

High street rental auctions are not just about filling vacancies. They are about creating vibrant, sustainable environments for businesses, residents and visitors alike, so can my hon. Friend the Minister provide assurances that high street rental auctions will not see our high streets filled with more vape shops and American candy shops? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] They can often be fronts for money laundering and other criminal activity. Additionally, we need to ensure that our local authorities have the resources and capacity to manage these changes.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this important debate. Our local authority, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council, is part of the early adopters programme for this scheme, but when I contacted it recently to ask about the number of properties that it had identified in our area that were going to be part of the scheme, it told me that it was just one. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that we need to see a more ambitious approach from local authorities for the scheme really to be worth while?

[Jessica Toale]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour from Poole for the intervention. I certainly hope that our local authority will take an ambitious approach and I am working very closely with it to help it to identify areas within Bournemouth town centre. BCP council has expressed concern about the cost of having to implement such measures, and the potential for expensive legal challenges it may face as a result. I would be grateful if the Minister would outline how we can mitigate some of those issues, and how the £1.5 million that has been set aside is intended to be used.

I underline that this is a moment for action. The powers granted to local councils are a great step forward, but we need to ensure that the changes are not simply superficial. We must think about how we can make our high streets and the commercial offering work for everyone —for businesses, our communities and the economy as a whole. I will continue to champion the revitalisation of our high streets in Parliament; by working together, we can ensure that our high streets become the thriving, vibrant centres that they were always meant to be.

It is fantastic to see my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) was meant to be here as well. Their local authorities are also early adopters of the scheme. I look forward to hearing their contributions and to continuing this important conversation. I also encourage other Members to speak to their own local authorities and push them to join this initiative.

We have a real opportunity to break the vicious cycles that I mentioned at the beginning of this speech, and to turn them into virtuous circles, where we fill our shops, increase footfall, reduce antisocial behaviour, and again build pride in our town centres and high streets across the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak. If we are to accommodate all those who have given advance notice, we need to restrict contributions to about six or seven minutes. Members should bear that in mind. I call Gideon Amos.

14:41

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on bringing this key issue for our town centres to Westminster Hall.

I was elected on a platform that focused in part on bringing inward investment to Taunton and Wellington, and that passion is close to my heart. Taunton and Wellington town centres are already attractive and vibrant places to visit, to shop and for leisure. Occupancy rates in Taunton town centre have increased from 85% to 90%; more new businesses are moving in. Somerset County Gazette reports seven new businesses in the town centre in the past 12 months: Cornish Bakery, Koottaan, Desparia, Somerset Bakehouse, Toys “R” Us, Drippy Bear and Islands Caribbean restaurant—not a vape shop among them, which is good to see for our town centre.

In Wellington, street food and food festivals bring people in from far and wide, and a new banking hub has opened. My only objection to the new banking hub, which is great news for Wellington, is that it is run by the Post Office, with a sign above the door saying “Post Office”, but there is no post office inside. Wellington still needs a post office, and we hope that the Government will see the light and decide that buildings with “Post Office” on the outside should contain a post office. We will continue working on that as hard as we can.

On Sundays, Taunton has a fantastic new independent market, which brings people in from far and wide. However, one building is a particular issue for our town centre. It was built as a W & A Chapman department store in 1938, and was substantially remodelled in the ’60s, just after Debenhams took it over in 1959. It is a large, handsome building, and a real landmark in the centre of our town—one of the biggest buildings in the heart of our town centre, if not the largest. However, it has stood empty, sadly, for around four years now.

I welcome the high street auction provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which could be extremely useful. However, the powers to allow councils to carry out high street rental auctions are subject to a number of restrictions. Auctions apply to commercial premises that have been vacant for at least one year out of the past two, which is a reasonable requirement—so far, so good. They must also meet a suitability requirement—this is getting a bit doubtful. Then there are process and landlord obligations: local authorities can issue a final letting notice compelling a landlord to rent the property via auction, which is obviously a good move. The property must also be offered at a fair market rent, which is reasonable. Then there is an appeal mechanism, so there are more catches. One potential challenge is that the auction’s success depends on tenant demand. Who will define tenant demand? If we do not attempt an auction, how will we discover what tenant demand is? The appeal process provides a number of areas for challenge by the landowner.

Whether or not high street rental auctions are suitable for that particular Debenhams building, I am concerned about the number of exceptions from the powers. The guidance says:

“High Street Rental Auctions will not be suitable for all high street premises; for instance, large former department stores may be subject to long-term, complex redevelopment plans which may be negatively impacted by being subject to inclusion.”

Presumably, any owner of a former department store could say, “My department store is subject to complex, long-term redevelopment plans, which could be negatively impacted by a high street auction.” A whole class of town centre buildings—some of the biggest we have—therefore seem to be excluded from high street rental auctions, which is a real drawback and a real shame.

The guidance also says that auctions will not be appropriate

“should the local authority consider that there is not likely to be a sufficient tenant base and demand for the premises”.

As I said, how do we know what the demand for the premises is if we have not attempted to market them through high street auctions? I urge the Government to look at the guidance and the powers, and to see whether they could be applied to some of the biggest, most iconic buildings in our town centres, which are of course empty department stores.

Even in a healthy town centre such as Taunton’s, the presence of one large building that remains empty can be a real problem. Whether or not it is suitable for a high street auction, the building in question in Taunton really needs attention; it needs to be dealt with, because it has been empty since 2021. Planning permission was sought in 2020 to demolish it and build apartments. That application was withdrawn, but it could have been refused. The Twentieth Century Society praised the building’s architecture and made it subject to a listing application, although it did not quite make the grade. It has an important place in the hearts of people in Taunton. It has 7,000 square metres of floor space, so it is a big building. Many believe that it could be saved and reused. It occupies a fantastic location, with the River Tone on one side, one of the key town centre streets on the frontage, and our fantastic Taunton castle on a third side, which has been the historic seat of government in the county of Somerset for hundreds of years.

One reason why the building might be suitable for refurbishment is that demolishing it would bring a requirement to carry out archaeological investigations. During the previous application, Historic England produced one of the lengthiest representations I have ever seen, which suggested that investigations would be required. If the building is not demolished, that work would not be needed, which would potentially be a much cheaper operation for the owners.

We have tried to engage with the owners of the building, but it has been challenging. The town council and groups of architects have brought forward schemes for the building, but they have been unable to get floor plans or really engage with the owners. I reached out and wrote to the owners via recorded delivery, email and all the other methods I could think of, and I was pleased that Ropemaker Properties recently came back to me. I am grateful to the company for offering to meet me and Taunton town council to discuss how this important building can be brought back into use, and for putting that meeting in the diary.

Finally, I urge the Government to think about the extent of these powers and whether big department stores should be completely excluded from them.

14:48

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this important debate.

It was the honour of my life last summer to be elected as the local Member of Parliament in Mansfield, partly because some of my earliest memories are of my older cousins taking me into the thriving, beautiful town centre, which at that time hosted a bustling local business scene. My favourite was the Miss Candy sweet shop—it was not the American kind—which my cousins would take me to before we went to the Granada cinema in Mansfield town centre.

Sadly, over the years, our high streets have lost a great deal of the sparkle I remember as a child. They have become a shadow of their former selves, with one in seven high street shops closed across the country. Mansfield is no exception, with one in six closed, which is not very different from what we see in other parts of the country. Many of the big-name anchor retailers mentioned today—Beales, Woolworths and Debenhams—have all gone from Mansfield. Unfortunately, many of the small businesses that have been in the town for generations have also disappeared in recent years. Antisocial behaviour remains an issue, with vacant, boarded-up shops becoming an eyesore, often attracting those who want to loiter and sometimes cause trouble. Police cuts under the former Government also meant that local officers were less able to patrol and intervene.

It is not inevitable that our towns will continue this degree of decline and deterioration. In Mansfield, we of course want a thriving town centre with a mix of traders, facilities and community assets that attract people to the town. I therefore thank local organisations, such as Mansfield district council, which is working hard with organisations like the Mansfield BID—the business improvement district—to improve our town, including by converting the former Beales department store into a new community and civic hub. This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for renewal will transform the former Beales into a hub hosting a range of organisations —including educational institutions—public services and opportunities for enterprise, health and wellbeing amenities.

I very much welcome that, but we need to do more. That is why I stood as an MP, making it one of my missions to revitalise our town centre as part of my deliverable local plan. I am therefore proud to support a Government who have already taken decisive action to support that effort, including by committing to a £20 million investment for Mansfield as part of the long-term plan for towns, permanently lowering business rates and providing more money to tackle retail crime.

The Government are also introducing—this is the topic we are discussing today—powers to establish high street rental auctions. As has been mentioned, that new and creative policy will help to regenerate our high streets. Having engaged with the Government, I am delighted that Mansfield has been chosen as one of the first areas to participate in this initiative. These trailblazing new powers will allow Mansfield district council to tackle persistently vacant properties by putting leases up for auction, preventing disengaged landlords from sitting on empty properties, and bringing vacant commercial properties back into use.

That will have a transformational impact on our town centre, making units available for all manner of organisations, from local entrepreneurs to community groups. It will help to re-energise our town centre in a way we have not seen for a generation or more. Although the project is in its early days, the Government recently made funding available to Mansfield district council, which is currently engaging to deliver on this new approach.

Having spoken to officers involved in delivering the policy in Mansfield, I understand that they have concerns about how the scheme will be implemented—notably around the council’s flexibility in spending the money allocated to deliver the policy. In the council’s opinion, some minor changes could make a significant difference in supporting it to deliver this important policy. As such, I would be grateful if the Minister could meet me and officers from Mansfield district council to discuss those changes further in a constructive manner.

To conclude, I thank the Government for supporting Mansfield in this way, and I look forward to us working together so that we can support our town centre. That shows what a Labour Government, a Labour MP and a Labour council, working hand in hand, can deliver for people across the country, including in Mansfield.

14:55

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing today’s debate. She has been extremely busy today: she asked a question at Prime Minister’s questions, and now she is leading this debate, so well done to her. I should just say that I have not had a PMQ in five years, so she has done really well—[Laughter.] Not that I am disappointed, by the way.

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, because I am really keen on this scheme. When I saw the title for the debate, I said, “What exactly are they after?” We do not have the scheme in Northern Ireland, but I think I am going to present it to my Minister at the Northern Ireland Assembly and make my local council aware of it, because it could benefit my constituency of Strangford and other constituencies right across Northern Ireland. It shows a way forward; the hon. Lady referred to that, as did the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), and others will do the same.

I very much respect the steps the hon. Lady has taken to rejuvenate local high streets and town centres. Those places are the pillars of our communities, and we must ensure that they are protected. I am probably fortunate to have a fairly thriving town centre in Newtownards, although I have recently noticed an increased number of vacancies, which we have not had for a great many years. That tells me that there is a trend starting, and one that we need to be aware of. That is why I want to take this debate a wee bit further, and I will do so.

The Government’s high street rental auction initiative is a great way to improve high street footfall. In my constituency of Strangford, for example, many wonderful community groups and small businesses could really benefit from having a central space to undertake their work. I have some ideas on how we could bring that about through community initiatives, and perhaps with other groups that would be keen to do something in the town.

Of course, as others probably have, I have written to Chick-fil-A, to Popeyes and to some carry-out stores to introduce them to my constituency. They make plans three or four years ahead, so I am hoping that my letters from the last year will bring those names to Newtownards —they are something Northern Ireland has very little of—and that we can advance things. The HSRA scheme does not apply directly to Northern Ireland, or to the devolved nations, but we have a different way of selling our residential and commercial properties. I am therefore keen to hear how this scheme works.

One change I have seen, probably in the last three or four years, has been the increase in online sales. We have many family stores, and one—I will not mention the name of the owner or the store—is a modern clothes store for the modern shopper. It used to sell everything across the counter, but 40% of its business is now across the counter, while 60% is online. Is that one of the things that will be promoted—ensuring that the shops stay and can run their online business from where they are? Again, that is something that I am particularly glad to see.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) referred to banking hubs. Again, that is something I have been involved with as well. We have lost 11 banks in my constituency. We have lost every bank in Ballynahinch and in Comber—two of our major towns—but, along with the Government, we have been supporting the banking hub initiative. One of the new banking hubs has opened in the middle of Comber, which will bring people to the town centre again from elsewhere in the town and from the countryside. There is another hub planned for Ballynahinch. As I said in a debate this morning, my frustration with banking hubs is that it takes so darn long for them to happen. Banking hubs are a really important alternative to a bank, and we have done some work on that.

When I look back, the negative trend probably started with the covid-19 pandemic, which is terribly frustrating. I understand that Newtownards and Bangor, which are in Ards and North Down, have a 21% vacancy rate on commercial property. That is really worrying, and we have to address it. The vacancies are not all in the town centre—some of them are out of town—but they add to a scenario that is quite worrying.

I will follow up with my council and my Minister about introducing the scheme that the Government have put forward and how that could help, because I believe that the projects that other hon. Members have referred to are worthy of designated funding. I have a special request of the Minister, as I always do of Ministers: could she make contact with the Minister back home, who I am pretty sure would be Gordon Lyons at the Department for Communities, so that Westminster and the devolved Assembly can work together?

The high street rental auctions scheme has many benefits; I have heard about some of them today, and I will hear about more before the debate is over. I look to how we can work together. As I always say—and I say it with genuine sincerity—we might have different ideas in the regions we come from, but we have a united interest in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we can share ideas. This is an opportunity to share ideas to help my constituents and help my major town of Newtownards, as well as Comber and Ballynahinch, to do better. If we can do that, this will have been a very good debate.

15:02

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on securing this important debate on high street rental auctions and everything that that means for representatives of towns in particular around this country.

I was elected on a commitment to help to fix our town centres and get them back to being places where people want to spend time and enjoy spending time, bringing back a sense of community. These increased powers for local authorities are a fantastic opportunity to unlock the full potential of high streets across the nation, including the ones in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. The Labour Government’s announcement on high street rental auctions is a welcome and much-needed intervention to give greater control of the state of our high streets back to local people, to empower them and their local authorities, and to give them the opportunity to play a part in revitalising our high streets.

We have had levelling-up funds, towns funds, future high streets funds and many more—too many for me to remember. They were fragmented and piecemeal initiatives offered by previous Governments, generally characterised by competitive funding pots that pitted towns against one another. Ultimately, they have failed to deliver the changes that were promised, and they have left communities like ours—I am guessing from the supportive groans behind me that Members agree—frustrated at the many promises but little or delayed delivery.

This proposal is a substantial change that will give power back to local areas, putting them in charge of their own destinies and how they want to meaningfully revive their high streets. As a case in point, the redevelopment of the shopping centre in Grimsby is very controversial, with £25 million spent by the local authority on purchasing Freshney Place, which has long had significant leaks in its roof. It is causing concern for local residents—is it a white elephant? That is only one of the changes that has been taken on in an attempt to repurpose Grimsby town centre for 21st-century habits, while recognising the increase in online shopping.

The redevelopment has laudable aims, but seven years after signing a purported £67 million town deal and a further four years after local growth funding, the most that anybody visiting the town centre could say is that the Conservative council has managed to repave the old bus station area again. As you know, Mr Vickers, that is a source of contention locally, with some seating and landscaping, but also shingle that unfortunately spreads itself all over—that has created another mess and another problem. Even that work was over time and over budget. People look at those headline figures and wonder where on earth all the money has gone because they cannot see any evidence of it in the delivery.

We can contrast that effort, which has taken a very long time, with the redevelopment of St James House, a long neglected and derelict building opposite our historic minster in the heart of the town centre. A local business support organisation called E-Factor has taken that building on and, after intense work, is due to open its doors of brand-new business suites, completely revitalising the building and turning what was a bit of a monstrosity into a place that people want to work out of. The empty building drew antisocial behaviour to it—undesirables gravitated to the old car parking spaces that were neglected and left—but now people are pleased and proud to be part of the new development. That is an indication of what can come from expanding the powers of local authorities.

On Grimsby’s commercial vacancy rate at the end of 2023, I see Bournemouth’s 15% vacancy rate and raise it to Grimsby’s 27%, which is over double the national average. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West used the word “staggering”, which I echo, because it really is. Even in the attractive and bustling St Peter’s Avenue in Cleethorpes, the vacant shop fronts seem to be staying vacant for much longer.

Such properties leave high streets with lengthy stretches of nothingness at risk of vandalism and, frankly, are a bit depressing to walk down when going to the shops. The fact that they are vacant for long periods does not seem to incentivise landlords in any way to reduce their rental asking prices. It seems that they would rather leave them vacant until the right client comes along, although I am not sure who those right clients are. Supporting our high streets also means championing the fantastic businesses that we already have.

In north-east Lincolnshire, the dedicated 2025 Group is committed to seeing our town flourish, and I am sure it will welcome the legislation. We have brilliant independent businesses in the constituency doing their best and playing their part. They are the backbone of our local economy and they will all benefit from the new powers, as they will no longer be sandwiched between derelict or empty premises.

I urge my local authority, North East Lincolnshire council, to take full advantage of the high street rental auctions when they are fully rolled out to maximise the ongoing work, complement it and aid its sustainability. They are a fantastic opportunity to tackle those empty shops and support local businesses, entrepreneurs, youth creatives and budding new organisations that have been crying out for affordable and central spaces to support their ideas and businesses, and they will help to restore pride in our community. By bringing those spaces back into use, we can create more jobs, attract more visitors and make our town centres the thriving spaces they deserve to be.

15:09

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this debate. It is an important debate, because when we talk to people in towns such as Burntwood in my constituency, they see their town centre—their high street—as a physical representation of how well the economy is doing. For obvious reasons, much of the conversation in politics at the moment is about growth, which the Government have placed at the heart of what they want to do, but the line about growth being felt everywhere needs to be demonstrated through a revival of our high streets and town centres.

I look around at hon. Members present in this debate, and we are town MPs by and large. It is town centres that have really struggled over a number of years of Government inaction, as well as the bluff and buster about levelling up that failed to do anything. When I talk to my constituents about what levelling up means, it is very difficult to tie down, but if growth is to be felt everywhere in the country, it needs to come back to those high streets and town centres.

I am pleased that the new Government are giving councils the powers to act on the issue and revitalise our high streets, such as the power to take an empty shop and get a business in there, so that somebody can visit and buy something, or they can spend their time and invest themselves in their town. Within that, I am particularly pleased that Lichfield district council is an early adopter and will be acting quickly to use those new powers to ensure that landlords are leasing those properties in Lichfield city centre and Burntwood.

Lichfield is lucky to have a thriving city centre, and we are fortunate to have great cafés and a wonderful set of pubs and restaurants, including the only Michelin star ever awarded in Staffordshire. Although my constituents are happy to have that café culture, they would also like to go into town and buy more than a vape. They are happy to support charity shops, but they would also like something that did not have the word “charity” before “shop”. Hopefully, the introduction of this new policy, as well as the district council following it through, will change the economics to support those traditional retailers, such as clothes retailers, to come back to our cities so that people can patronise those shops.

Up the road in Burntwood, it is a different story. Burntwood is a town of around 35,000 people. It developed from a number of villages growing into each other during the last century, but it has been starved of investment for decades. The town centre in Burntwood, which is almost ready to go, is great and there are wonderful businesses at Sankey’s Corner, but it has not had the investment to make that really kick on. This new Government policy is a wonderful opportunity to ensure that, where there are great shops, the gaps in the middle are filled.

People in Burntwood are sick and tired of being told to wait their turn. For too long, under the previous Government, that was the policy for such places: “Wait your turn. Keep bidding for these £20 million pots, and one will come to you eventually, but we can’t tell you when. It might come down the line”—but it never came. People in the town do not want to wait for a handout. They do not want someone to ride in on a white charger and say, “I am bestowing upon you your £20 million. It will solve everything for you!” That is not how our economy works. We do not have a planned economy in the UK—it is not Soviet Russia.

We want to support genuine, real local businesses to start up and deliver services for our residents. I looked forward to coming to this debate to discuss this issue and say how important this policy is for councils to make sure that people have venues to access.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on securing this excellent debate. The good people of Lichfield and Redditch share a lot of common themes, particularly the pride in our town centres and high streets. My businesses, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), have spent so much money on doing up their shops, and they have worked with the Redditch business improvement district and the council to do all they can to bring people in. They have been let down because we do not have the powers to support them by closing those vacant shops and getting more people in. I strongly welcome these powers, but does he agree that we can make the difference that our high streets and towns deserve if the Government work together with our excellent councils—such as the newly Labour-elected Redditch borough council, which is about to reopen the outdoor market for the first time in five years under the leadership of Councillor Joe Baker—instead of pitting town against town?

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend from the end of the railway line for his intervention—it is a long railway line and the busiest outside London. He is right that towns should never be pitted against each other. Far too often, even in my constituency, which has two towns of around 35,000 people, it is sometimes felt that one of them gets the cheese and one of them does not. That is unfortunate for the town that is considered to have got the cheese, because everyone deserves the support, but it is really unfair for the town that feels like it does not have it. Every single town deserves that kind of town centre; every single high street deserves that vibrancy. They deserve to thrive, and the people who live there deserve to have that centre—a place they can invest themselves in in their local area.

On that basis, I am very happy to support the policy that the Government are introducing. However, that absolutely cannot be the end of this. I will keep fighting for Burntwood town centre. I will keep fighting for high streets, and not just in towns—I could get on to village high streets, but somebody will punch me in a minute. I will continue to fight for more for Burntwood and continue talking to developers, working with the council and working with any stakeholder that I can to drive investment into our town centres. This is a great start from my Government, but there is always more to do.

15:16

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for securing this welcome debate. Our high streets were once the beating heart of our communities, but the years of decline have hit towns such as Worksop, Harworth and Retford in my constituency hard. The immense sadness and frustration that I feel as I walk through my towns is shared by many of my constituents. In my view, the death knell started with the shift to out-of-town shopping centres in the ’80s and ’90s, but since then, the ease and habit of online shopping has caused the closing down and boarding up of shops on a massive scale. The pandemic put that on steroids, and for many, the habit of using the town centres to shop in is now long forgotten.

The value of community and pride in where we live is recognised and valued by everyone, and the commitment to revitalising our town centres rides above the politics in this place and elsewhere. I therefore welcome the new powers for local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial properties to new tenants, such as local businesses or community groups.

[Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that these powers exist to tackle persistently vacant shop units, but does she share my concern about the scandalous practices undertaken by some landlords, including in my constituency? Those landlords register empty shop units as occupied in an effort to avoid paying business rates, thereby placing them outside the scope of this policy, because in policy terms they are registered as occupied. That, in turn, leaves shop units that are vital to our civic pride to rack and ruin. Will she join me in asking the Minister to look at those practices with a view to tackling them?

[Jo White]

I thank my hon. Friend so much for his intervention. Like him, I can identify properties on my high streets that do exactly that—they have furniture and equipment inside, but never open their doors and are clearly empty—in order to avoid paying business rates. That definitely needs to be tackled, and I hope that the Minister has heard his concerns.

I welcome the fact that my local authority, Bassetlaw district council, has been proactive about this challenge and has applied to be an early adopter of the scheme. The town centres of Harworth, Worksop and Retford would all be beneficiaries of that proposal as defined designated areas for this intervention. The local authority is a trailblazer for the programme, but as with all new projects and proposals—this is similar to the issues that my hon. Friends raised regarding Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council and Mansfield district council—they hit up against issues that could be ironed out to make the roll-out easier and smoother for other towns that are biting at the bit to begin this process.

The past 14 years have left local authorities significantly cash-strapped, and the project needs to include funding to cover the cost of officer time to set up and administer this relatively complex scheme. That will inevitably put a strain on our existing resources, compromising the delivery of other projects, and may stop other councils coming forward.

The designation of areas is not necessarily straightforward. My local authority has had to manage constitutional matters to institute the designated areas, which has caused delays in getting the project under way. There is no funding for the essential survey costs that must be undertaken before going to auction. The guidance states that those costs can be passed on to the end occupier should there be a successful bidder, and that this should be made clear in the auction marketing materials. There is a risk, however, as passing on the costs is likely to dampen demand.

The application guidance states that refurbishment funding has been set between £40,000 and £79,000, based on the property footprint, but it is anticipated that it will be approximately £50,000 per property, which is insufficient for some properties and end users. In Worksop, for example, we have a shortage of food and drink establishments. The £40,000 to £79,000 can be used only for refurbishment, and not for a fit-out. The high cost of fitting out a catering venue will be a potential deterrent to business investment.

Although the council is exploring the use of UK shared prosperity funding to enable fit-out works to take place, those funds end in March 2026, so that is not a sustainable solution. The council remains very keen to be a flagbearer for this significant proposal, which has the potential to transform our town centres, but it is also keen to be part of the problem-solving process as the roll-out begins. Will the Minister meet me and my local authority to discuss these matters further?

15:22

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), a fellow Dorset Member of Parliament, for securing this important debate, and I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce high street rental auctions.

My constituency is no exception to the trend of closing high street businesses and vacant properties that we have sadly seen up and down the country. My first job growing up was serving fish and chips at the Marlboro, a popular fish and chip shop by the harbour in Weymouth. Since that time, and following the pandemic and the rise of online shopping, it has been depressing to see town centres such as Weymouth struggle to maintain their vibrant culture and footfall. Many businesses are understandably concerned about what the falling footfall means for their viability. They are calling for innovative solutions to breathe new life into our town centres, and that is exactly what high street rental auctions will help to deliver. They will revitalise our town centres and put the community at the centre of the revitalisation.

The local business improvement district in Weymouth and Portland and the chamber of commerce have been working tirelessly to rejuvenate Weymouth town centre. They have had a great deal of success so far, but they are clear that we must go further. High street rental auctions are just one tool in our box, but they cannot be the only way to empower local businesses and business groups, such as the BID and the chamber of commerce, to revitalise the town centre.

I am really pleased that the Government have given local councils direct powers to rent out vacant properties. That will enable local people and businesses to shape the future of the high street, and to make sure that it serves local needs and preserves and champions existing businesses. In particular, I am pleased that this measure could deliver targeted support for community ownership. That means that, with Government guidance, councils can identify assets that are most likely to deliver social, economic and cultural benefits locally with a community ownership model. That is a really welcome move, and I hope to see that in my South Dorset constituency and town centres right across the country.

This Labour Government are acting now to revitalise our town centres, placing local communities at the centre of that change and making sure that high streets like mine in Weymouth continue to be the beating heart of our communities.

15:25

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), on securing this important debate. It is great to see four new Members from Dorset here this afternoon, which shows what a fantastic place it is to visit. I agree with the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) that high streets are, of course, the beating heart and the identity of a place, but they also hold—as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) mentioned—the communal memory of the people who live in, work in and visit a place.

I remember the high street of my youth, in a little town in Edenbridge, Kent. I used to visit the independent chemist, which doubled as a gift shop, to buy presents for my mum—I am sure she never liked them—and I would go to the big town for summer holiday shopping with stores like C&A and Chelsea Girl, and department stores like Allders and Debenhams. But those high streets were symptoms of their time, and I am sure that our grandparents would have been shocked by the identikit towns that we have had over so many years. It might be right and proper that some of those brands have succumbed to what is going on now—there is the negativity around online buying but also the trend toward second-hand and vintage shopping, which is actually quite a positive move.

Almost 13,000 retailers shut their shops last year, and according to a recent report, retail institutes warned that a “perfect storm” of higher costs and red tape means that one in 10 shop-floor jobs are expected to disappear by 2028. We need to make these moves with that as a background. But many places are bucking the trend and I hate to be negative about places, so even Bournemouth—which has had so much negativity—has had increase in footfall of 12.5% year on year. We need to congratulate those amazing businesses that are making the difference.

We must also think about what the high street means for us now: a combination of shopping, entertainment, living, working, playing, studying and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) says, post offices. We Lib Dems welcome all the ideas to shape and support our high streets and town centres. Of course, local and national governments have a vital role to play, but the issue is not rent; it is business rates. Landlords say that rates are now higher than the rents that they can command in many cases, so a scheme that addressed that would be the most welcome. I am sure that the Minister will tell us about the new lower rate for retail, hospitality and leisure, but we need something substantially different from the current model.

I entered politics a long time ago on a local level to reform business rates, so it is great that I have finally made it to this position, and can hopefully make an impact. Lib Dems want to see business rates replaced with a commercial landowner levy to create a more level playing field, shifting the responsibility from tenant to landlord, and also ensuring that high streets can compete against businesses that do not have the same overheads. In abolishing the broken business rates system, we would look to tax the land value of commercial sites, not productive investment, because that is the problem—at the moment, we tax business investment, which impacts productivity and wages. The biggest impact would be on small businesses in deprived areas. They would then be a part of the regeneration of a space through wider community development, which can work alongside rental auctions. We welcome the current discussion paper on business rates reform. Can the Minister update us on when we can expect that to move forward?

On the rental auction initiative, the Lib Dems are concerned about the potential costs of the scheme for local authorities. Although the programme has funding allocated to it, it is not clear whether local authorities would be able to use this to take on leases to help them to enable business growth and start-ups to take off. There is no doubt about the financial burden on councils at the moment, and I am deeply concerned about whether there is the capacity and desire in some places to deliver something on the scale that is needed.

The industry also has doubts about the new auction system and whether it will have the desired effect. I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) about hospitality fit-outs. Someone can spend £30,000 just like that on a small independent café, and that money is not going to come from just anywhere, particularly in the limited amount of time that these auction leases will be arranged for.

The funding available to create vacancy lists is welcome. Economic development teams have an amazing opportunity to drive the vision for their area forward; I am concerned that landlords may not understand the other innovative uses for their buildings, whereas a local authority has the ability to go out and scout for other businesses that might want to come into an area. There is an opportunity through the scheme if the funding can be used in a more flexible way. I am interested to know how councils can use the funding if they do not have property that they can put forward and auction now, but want to get ahead of the game. Any building sitting empty for more than 12 months is a long time, and the rot will already be setting in, so getting ahead of the game would be really useful.

A local council also shared that the high street rental auction is a big stick with which to beat up landlords who are not willing to engage. I read in The Business Times of a business lawyer who said:

“The question however remains: are we genuinely operating within a market of idle landlords who require this intervention? If the regulations only offer a solution for the minority and do not tackle the root cause of a greater economic issue around demand and affordability…these detailed provisions may not be the ‘breath of new life’ the government envisages.”

I am also concerned that the power will not do very much in small towns. It is understandable that the big towns such as Mansfield and Bournemouth might well see some benefit from this, but smaller places such as Broadstone or Wareham, or even Swanage and Wellington, might actually be invisible to the big councils as they look to the areas with a significant problem. One or two long-standing empty buildings in those smaller towns can have just as much of an impact, but they are unlikely to be worthwhile with the moneys coming to councils to make the scheme work.

My final point is on the reasons a property might be empty—there may be very good reasons. If councils are to use this power effectively, we must help landlords to bring properties into use if they simply cannot afford to do so otherwise. The high street rental auction requires landlords to bring properties up to the minimum energy efficiency standards—if they do not, they potentially face criminal prosecution. That could cripple landlords financially. What plans are there to support landlords who may wish to improve their stock but for whom doing so is not commercially viable?

Across my Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency, businesses have cited the huge costs associated with operating, which are affecting confidence and putting them off investing in physical property. Soaring energy costs, the increase in national insurance contributions, worries about the impacts of some measures in the Employment Rights Bill and international insecurity mean that taking on a high street premises is probably more difficult right now than it has been for a long time. What considerations are the Government offering to businesses that want to invest but are worried about then having an immediate revaluation of their rates—as in the case of Hall and Woodhouse, which I raised last month?

Without sustainable financial support for councils to eliminate the other issues around town centres, from rough sleeping to public transport initiatives and funding for police to deal with antisocial behaviour, I fear that the scheme may have a minimal effect and be counterproductive. It is a good start: I give credit to the previous Government for starting it, and I hope this Government will finish it, but I would like to know how it will be made more interesting and effective for a broader range of towns.

15:34

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Vickers, and to have been present for this wide-ranging debate. I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) will be pleased: anyone watching this debate, and seeing so many of our colleagues over in the main Chamber debating issues around family businesses, will welcome the focus that this debate brings to our high streets, that large and important part of our economy.

We are debating these issues at a time when, based on the figures across the country, growth is down, jobs, vacancies and hiring are down, investment by businesses in the UK is down and inflation is up. While there is always a political debate to be had about the causes behind those factors, it is clear that last October’s Budget had a significant impact. It is important to consider how measures such as the one at the anchor of this debate, high street rental auctions, can be used to address those challenges by local and regional authorities and by the new mayors that the Government are proposing to bring in across the country.

Our high streets have faced many interrelated pressures in recent years. Members have referred to the impact of online shopping on consumer habits and the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. When our high streets and retail were to some extent closed, or significantly restricted, it drove a rapid change in consumer behaviour that we see reflected in patterns of business investment across the country. All those issues have created a challenge for our local businesses in making sure both that their prices remain competitive and that they can draw in both the staff and the customers they require.

Members have also referred to the impact of out-of-town shopping centres. Although many of our high streets and local business communities have been able to change and adapt, others have found it an ongoing challenge. At the tail end of the last century, I worked in a local bank on the village high street in Pinner in my constituency. That bank is no longer there—only the Nationwide remains as a financial provider on that high street—but there are no vacant units today because other forms of business have opened up, principally in hospitality. That has been a significant change in the way that high street operates. It is a great pleasure to represent a constituency with seven local high streets; I regularly host surgeries in those hospitality businesses as an opportunity to find out what is going on, and I know that many other Members do the same.

The pressures that Members have described in this debate can be seen quite starkly in the figures. In the period between March 2020 and March 2022, we saw a loss of a net total of 9,300 retail units across the country. Some were converted into residential accommodation. Government policy, over many years and from all parties, has recognised the demand for housing and the changing nature of the high street, and that has enabled the conversion of those properties, where appropriate, to provide much-needed homes. Often, because of the nature of those conversions, they have provided additional customers for the remaining premises on the high streets. However, at the same time we have seen the loss of many cherished local businesses such as those Members have spoken of, and others, particularly independent retailers, continue to struggle.

The high street rental auction policy was introduced under the previous Government in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. It was one of several measures taken by that Government, and it granted local authorities for the first time a power through a new initiative designed to bring new life to persistently vacant properties. When retail units are persistently empty, sometimes there are problems with absentee landlords and it can be enormously difficult to force the issue and bring the units back into use. Rental auctions are a significant new idea, alongside the investments through the future high streets fund and other schemes designed to ensure that high streets across the country remain sustainable.

There will be much debate about the impact that that policy has had, especially given the changing habits of our constituents. However, when we look at the feedback from independent organisations in particular, there is a great deal of concern that, even set alongside the benefits that this policy could bring, the overall business environment is having a significant negative impact both on the viability of high street businesses and business in general, and on retail in particular.

In recent comments, the British Retail Consortium comments said that the Government’s measure to increase the rate of employer national insurance contributions—that single policy alone—is likely to lead to a net loss of 160,000 jobs over the next two years, in particular because of its impact on those large numbers of people who are in lower-paid, but flexible and part-time work. Most of us will have heard from businesses in our constituencies that they remain extremely concerned about that bigger issue. There is also concern in respect of the changes being introduced to non-domestic rates—business rates—an assessment that has been shared by a very wide group of professionals.

The Altus Group, a real estate company, released some research recently estimating that the big reduction in business rates discounts for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, which go from 75% to 40% in the next financial year, will result in a 140% increase in business rates bills at individual business level for around a quarter of a million high street premises in England. To put that into real money, an average shop currently paying £3,589 in business rates will see that bill rise to £8,613 from next April. Pubs, which many Members have cited in debates here and elsewhere, would see a typical bill rising from £3,938 to £9,451 a year. All these things represent significant increases in costs imposed on local businesses.

We recognise in particular the shift under way in how larger high street premises will be treated. I know some of those changes in business rates have been described as an Amazon tax, but it is clear that they will have a particular impact on places such as larger supermarkets in town centre locations, which often provide the parking and the anchor store that brings people into our towns. The Conservatives therefore remain extremely concerned at the impact that that has.

I am sure the Government will challenge us and say, “Well, what is your policy?” Clearly, we are in Opposition these days, and we did not have the opportunity to set out in Government a Budget to address this wider range of issues, but we know that preserving that strong growth and that steady and high rate of employment—the 4 million more people in work when we left office, and the halving of youth unemployment—was down to our sustained focus on the economy to sustain the buoyant high streets and local employment, the growth and the living standards that we all expect.

In conclusion, while this policy is important, we need to continue to see it as part of a package of vital measures that are there to sustain not just our high streets, but the commercial life of our nation. It is usually the voice of very big business that is heard in Parliament—a very large commercial concern with a public affairs team will find it very easy to make Parliamentarians pay attention to what it says—but around 70% of people employed in this country work in an enterprise with less than five staff in total.

The vast majority of our constituents, the vast majority of people who work in our country, are in shops and small enterprises. We need to make sure that, while their collective voice can be difficult to translate, their interests are at the heart of our thinking and the role that those small businesses play is visible. Our neighbourhood is vital to our quality of life. There is a reason why post-war planners, setting out to build large new areas of social housing, chose to make sure that there were retail units and shop fronts on those sites, so that people had ready access to the sense of community that they support.

We need to make sure that that is sustained, but sustained in the context of a world that is changing. As part of a Government and as politicians, we cannot second-guess or indeed directly change consumer behaviour through intervention, but we can support a wide range of businesses to ensure that we serve the widest possible interests of our community. For example, the shift to supermarket retail has helped to ensure that the UK has the second most affordable food, compared with household budgets, in the world. The shifting nature of our high streets means that, while there is less retail, there is more affordable hospitality and more of the good-quality, flexible and well-paid jobs that go with it.

Demographic change is also significant. As the ageing population of our country looks for more hospitality close to home, it creates an opportunity for those businesses. We have seen retail units implementing schemes such as soft play, as larger numbers of children in local communities drive the changing face of local businesses and create new opportunities, benefiting those children socially and benefiting local employment.

But I finish where I started. We are about to embark on a massive process of top-down local government reorganisation. We need to make sure that throughout all that turmoil, with policies such as high street rental auctions, what has been done for the high streets fund and the changes in business rates, we do not lose sight of how important our high streets and small businesses are. The consequences of the Government’s Budget can already be seen not just in business confidence and sentiment, but in the reducing numbers of jobs and vacancies, in falling investment and in rising inflation.

The Government have an opportunity to listen not only to the Opposition, but to professionals and business owners, who are politically neutral but have the interests of businesses in these communities at heart. The Government have the chance to make changes in the wider interests of our nation.

15:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) on securing this important debate. I believe it is her first Westminster Hall debate, so it is great to be responding to it. I know that she is a passionate advocate for her local high streets, including in her campaigning against post office closures.

High streets have been the subject of several debates recently, and there will be another later today focused on support for high street businesses. We have heard quite a bit already about that. This is a multifaceted subject, and the Government are pleased to have the chance to discuss the specific and important dimensions of our plans. The Government share hon. Members’ passion to support the growth and evolution of our town centres and the revival of our high streets. We all recognise that high streets were once the lifeblood of our towns and cities, sustaining jobs, businesses and communities. I know from my own constituency, although it is in inner London, that there are challenges when major stores close and so on.

The Government are committed to ensuring that high streets become successful again, despite the challenges that they face in adapting to consumer behaviour and the demographic change of the 21st century. Before I get into the specifics of what the Government are doing, I will gently point out to the Opposition spokespeople the context in which we are operating. In the 14 years before the general election, we saw austerity during the coalition Government, the economy being crashed under one of the Prime Ministers, and record under-investment. We have seen the spectre of high street shops facing shoplifting and much else.

We are trying to fix a set of challenges, and we are using the powers that were introduced under the previous Government pragmatically, making sure that they are deployed appropriately in the wider context while revitalising our high streets. I genuinely hope that we can work together to ensure that revitalisation, because while each of our constituencies has challenges, we have heard wonderful examples of vibrant high streets in the past. We need to be pragmatic and work together to fix them, and I hope that colleagues from Opposition parties will work in that spirit.

Before the general election, the Labour party set out its five-point plan to breathe life back into Britain’s high streets. It includes addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime, reforming the business rates system, working with the banking industry to roll out banking hubs, stamping out late payments and empowering communities to make the most of vacant properties. We are focused on ensuring that we provide the appropriate support to local authorities that are interested in using the high street rental auction power. Sadly, during 2024, up to one in seven shops on our high streets sat empty and boarded up, often for long periods. As hon. Members have highlighted, property that is left empty for long periods, as well as being an eyesore, can fall victim to disrepair or vandalism and be harder to bring back into use.

High street rental auctions are an important tool against persistent vacancy in our towns and cities, and in December we commenced legislation to enable their use. The new powers allow local authorities to require landlords to rent out persistently vacant commercial units, helping to bring businesses back to the high street and drive growth across the country. In introducing them, the Government are seeking to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities, and to make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants.

Through this initiative, we are putting power into the hands of local leaders. They are now empowered to auction off leases on premises that have been vacant for more than a year, and to grant local businesses and community groups the right to rent empty commercial lots at market prices. That gives power to those trying to shape and improve their high streets, and demands that landlords take sufficient steps to rent out empty properties.

To support delivery, we have made £1 million available to all local authorities. The fund has been open for applications since 15 January. In addition, a new burdens payment of up to £5,223 is available to help councils with initial implementation costs, such as those borne through legal advice and the auction process. The Department has made available guidance on how to use the powers, as well as a funding prospectus, to assist local authorities, and it will continue to engage with local authorities across England to promote the powers and spur implementation.

There are a number of early adopters, including councils in the areas of colleagues who have spoken today: Bassetlaw, Darlington and Mansfield are already working with us, and others have been placed in the second group—we will announce those shortly. We are working with the early adopters and a wider group to ensure that there is good learning, that good practice is spread and that there is good partnership working—not competition, but collaboration. That will ensure that local areas can learn from one another and that the provision is implemented appropriately.

Hon. Members have raised a number of issues, and a number of colleagues have sought meetings with officials, as well as with the lead Minister on this issue, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who will want to continue the dialogue. We will of course take away those requests and ensure that officials work closely with the relevant councils and Members of Parliament. I am conscious of the strong interest in this agenda and, if it is to work effectively in communities, we want to ensure that that partnership and close working relationship is in place.

I am extremely pleased that a number of councils have a strong interest in using the high street rental auction power, which is not the only action that the Government are taking to revive our high streets. We are introducing a new community right to buy to empower communities to address decline and protect valuable community spaces. The vision for empowered local decision making in the English devolution White Paper, to which some colleagues have referred, is also critical. If a high street or town centre is to flourish, local people, businesses and councils must work together to develop a unique offer for the high street that resonates with the local community.

Local authorities and mayors have the ability to bring people and organisations together to develop a vision for their areas. I welcome examples of local authorities taking the initiative to improve their high streets, and we have heard some extremely positive examples today. As was pointed out, in Bournemouth, Bobby’s is established in what was once a Debenhams store, and the Ivy has recently opened. Having made a number of visits to Bournemouth, I have certainly seen the great examples, but I recognise the challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West mentioned, too.

We are determined to make sure that we provide the appropriate backing through the high street rental auction power, as well as the Government’s wider agenda to support local government and devolution. We have increased local government funding in real terms, and we are ensuring that local authorities have the appropriate support and capacity. The problems we have inherited over the last 14 years cannot be resolved in one go in one Budget, but we have begun our plan for change and for action.

In another area that my Department covers, homelessness, we have invested £1 billion, including additional funding, to tackle what is another dimension of the societal challenges that we face. We need to support local authorities and local areas to support those who are sleeping rough and facing housing challenges. More broadly, we continue to invest in regeneration. The long-term plan for towns will provide 75 places across the UK with up to £20 million for funding and support over the next decade, giving communities the space and resources to build their vision for renewal.

Hon. Members raised a number of points in relation to undesirable types of organisations. Local authorities have powers to prohibit uses of particular types of operations and businesses, and we very much look to them to use those powers appropriately. On department stores, while the point about complexity has been recognised, local authorities can use compulsory purchase orders to address the issue and redevelop former stores. We keep the guidance under review, but we are happy to continue the dialogue; it is very important to make sure that we have a continuous process of learning and improvement.

I am conscious that we are running of time. My officials and I can write to hon. Members on specific questions that I have not been able to respond to. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West again for securing the debate, and I thank all hon. Members for participating in it and highlighting the wonderful examples in their constituencies, alongside the challenges. We look forward to working with hon. Members across the parties to help revitalise our town centres and ensure that they continue to make a strong positive contribution to our economy and to communities.

15:58

[Jessica Toale]

This is an important moment for our high streets and our local communities. The debate has been a real tour de force of our great towns, and I have been blown away by the passionate stories I have heard. We have heard nostalgia about towns as they once were, but also passion for the future and for what our towns can be. I share a lot of the pain that Members have expressed about our towns, but I know that there is potential in this policy, and the other measures that the Government are bringing in, to think about how we can make town centres work again, and how we can support and promote our local businesses and community spaces. I thank everybody for taking part.

I thank the Minister for addressing Members’ questions, as well as outlining the wider context of the situation that we are in and the Government’s wider range of reforms to support our small businesses: community right to buy, policing reforms, direct support to businesses —it all adds up and makes a difference. I thank her for her offer to continue to work with local authorities to make this scheme work. Many of us are eager to see it implemented, and I know that many of us are eager for our residents to see the real transformation that a Labour Government can bring about for our town centres.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policy on high street rental auctions.

Future Skills Programmes: Universities

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]

16:48

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Sir Ed Davey will move the motion and the Minister will respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for future skills programmes at universities.

It is really a pleasure to speak in your presence, Sir Desmond. I also thank the Minister, who knows that my aim in this debate is to give the Government a present—a present in the form of an idea that would revolutionise higher education, boost skills across our economy and be an engine of real growth. But it is more than that; it is an idea that could enhance the quality of life of millions of people, as it is also about social mobility and social justice—equality of opportunity in action. It is an idea that has already been fully and professionally researched, with thousands of businesses across the UK inputting into the completed research. This well researched idea has also been piloted and tested on real, live students. Moreover, it is an idea in its third year of practical roll-out. This is happening now, and it is being fully evaluated as it is put into action. It is a present that is, shall we say, oven ready.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for bringing forward the debate. I was saying beforehand that Queen’s University in Belfast is already doing this. It runs these online skills courses and programmes, through shadowing and other incentives. Does the right hon. Member agree that greater Government support could only help even more students to give those few hours per semester to achieve greater personal growth and better foundational skills—the very objective that he is trying to achieve?

[Ed Davey]

It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman, but I am going to push back a little bit, because I do not think any university is doing what Kingston University is doing—it might be partially —so I hope that he will listen to the rest of my remarks.

I think that this idea can be rolled out across England and, indeed, the whole UK and that it has the potential to help our schools, too. If that is not enough to intrigue and interest the Minister, I am not sure what is, but here is the icing on the cake: it will not cost very much. I hope I have got the Minister’s attention now. It is an idea that is very affordable. I am super-proud to say that this idea has been researched, developed, piloted, tested and rolled out in the fabulous university in my constituency—Kingston University.

I am about to unwrap this present, but in advance of the reveal, let me be clear that I have one main, simple ask of the Minister today. Please can she or her ministerial colleagues come to Kingston University to hear more from the academics involved, but above all to listen to the inspiring students who are already benefiting? And please come soon, before decisions are made in the spending review later this year, because I think students across the country can benefit from this.

Here is the present. Kingston University has developed a programme that it calls Future Skills, with the future skills being ones identified by business through a major research programme. There are nine skills in all. They are creative problem solving, digital competency including AI, adaptability, having a questioning mindset, empathy, collaboration, being enterprising, resilience, and self-awareness—something we could all do with in this House. The Minister will recognise, I hope, that these are essential life skills, but they are rarely taught, at least not directly. There is no undergraduate course with all these skills in the curriculum, yet they are the future skills that businesses say they want people to have.

Some people in other higher education institutions might say, “Well, we do that. We teach those skills, but in other ways. There’s nothing special to see here.” They would be wrong. Kingston University has developed modules for all these skills and insists that every single undergraduate takes these modules, whatever their main subject. They might be studying engineering or fashion—Kingston University, by the way, is in the top five in the UK, and is top in London, for fashion and textiles; I thought I would just get that in. They might be studying computer science or cyber-security, or nursing. Whatever the degree, students at Kingston University now study these nine future skills as well. What is more, Kingston University has structured the teaching of these future skills across three years of undergraduate study in phases called navigate, explore and apply. A first-year undergraduate will experience those future skills in a programme called navigate, which is designed to support the student’s transition into university life. It involves workshops that show that these future skills are not abstract but real skills with huge significance.

These workshops help students to navigate how they match up to the skills already. Are they naturally empathetic? Have they mastered AI? Are they good at collaboration and problem-solving? I guess the first-year undergraduate experience of the navigate phase of future skills could be described as self-assessment, where the student is offered relevant guidance and learning resources to develop all those skills. That first-year navigate phase was rolled out, after testing, for all Kingston University students in September 2023, reaching 5,300 students this academic year.

This September’s Kingston freshers will be the third cohort to experience navigate and future skills. Students in their second year take future skills forward in a phase called explore. That involves students working directly with employers to build their knowledge of these future skills and an understanding of what they mean in practice. They do that in a variety of ways: in mock assessment centres and live projects, and through placements and site visits. Some people would say they do that already, but they do not.

Explore has been tested for two years and rolled out for one. The full second year of Kingston students have been experiencing explore from last September, reaching more than 4,400 students. To take one example, an exercise developed with the John Lewis Partnership focused on Waitrose. Waitrose worked with Kingston students on actual questions and challenges that the business is facing, working with 600 second-year students from the university’s faculty of business and social science and the faculty of engineering, computing and the environment to help them to solve real problems.

Students are devising a system to make it easier for Waitrose to capture and interpret data from its suppliers. Other students are shaping a business-to-business marketing communications strategy for Waitrose to encourage suppliers to adopt appropriate use of artificial intelligence to support data insight.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for securing this debate. As a former apprentice, I was taught those skills, but those who chose the academic route often lack them. It would be wonderful to see this approach rolled out to many universities and made a permanent feature, so that everyone benefits, not only from employability but in their daily life skills.

[Ed Davey]

I am very happy to have that sign of support from the Government Benches already; we are making progress.

After the navigate and explore phases, the final stage of the future skills programme for third-year undergraduates is called apply. Students take stock of what they have learned with the nine skills, and refine and tailor their learning of future skills towards their careers. The apply stage of future skills is being piloted, tested and finalised with some students as we speak, with a full-year roll-out for all third-year Kingston students from September 2025.

I hope that that quite long description of Kingston University’s future skills helps the Minister and others to see that it is a well-thought through, properly researched and piloted programme, and it is happening. There is lot that Ministers and their officials can come and see for themselves, so I repeat my invite. If what I have said so far has not convinced the Minister—I find that hard to believe—here is another major argument. Big UK and international businesses, brands and organisations are coming to Kingston University because they love future skills.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the UK is to get the growth it needs from the new Tata Agratas gigafactory in Somerset, the University Centre Somerset in my constituency needs support from the Government to prepare the 4,000 new workers with the skills they need before they arrive?

[Ed Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a real champion for his university and the students there.

My hon. Friend backs up my point that major businesses are loving the future skills programme at Kingston. The home-grown talent and skills are what employers actually need. I am talking about the likes of IBM, Adobe, Deloitte Digital, John Lewis, Formula 1, and Salutem Care and Education, to name but a few. Public sector managers are also coming to Kingston for the programme, from the NHS to the Met police and the Civil Aviation Authority. They are helping to shape the future skills curriculum, to innovate and to identify talent. I am sure that the Minister will be unsurprised at the excited interest in the AI element of future skills, where Kingston is linking digital competency with an understanding of the human aspects of exploiting AI—the added value of being a human, if you like.

Another reason why I would like the Minister to visit soon is that the idea from Kingston University is already exciting interest from around the world. I fear that if someone in the Department for Education does not run with it now—frankly, this year—it will be yet another example of a great British innovation that is developed here but exploited elsewhere, because there has been interest from Korea and Singapore already. Education and political leaders in Korea and Singapore are engaging. Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, ranked 15th globally, is conducting research through its prestigious Centre for Cross Economy. It is speaking to thousands of businesses in the same way that Kingston University did in the UK, but Nanyang has far more resources and it is working at speed. But Kingston University is smart: it is partnering with Nanyang to explore international and business skills from perspectives in the east. With Korea and Singapore at the cutting edge of digital and AI innovation, the partnerships that Kingston is building have huge potential. That is just another aspect of the present I am bringing to the Government today.

I should perhaps declare another constituency interest. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who is in his place, I represent more British Koreans than any other Member. As trade Minister between 2010 and 2012, I helped to push the EU-Korea free trade agreement, which had a major impact on international trade discussions at the time. If only we could resurrect such trade moments now.

I would like to quote some students who have been living the future skills programme, and then I have a few more asks of the Minister. First, Abdurrahman, a computer science student, said:

“Taking part in the Future Skills programme has helped me understand just how important and necessary these skills are for everyone to progress in their chosen career pathways. From simulating how to talk to employers in industry to prototyping a start-up company, it’s brought to life how to use these skills in an employment or business setting.”

Paulina, a forensic psychology student, said:

“Future Skills has been integrated so well into my different modules and all my different modules really highlight the importance of these skills. It has reignited the passion I came to university with, by enabling me to reflect on why I started my forensic psychology course and giving me a deeper insight into the career I want in the future.”

Two Kingston University students, Amber and Rahman, are in the Public Gallery listening to the debate. They would be pleased and excited to talk to the Minister, or indeed other hon. Members, about their experience of the future skills programme after the debate. This is a full-on lobbying exercise.

I will turn to my final asks of the Minister and Department. The main ask remains: please visit. Please engage soon. I invite the Minister to ask herself, “Is this a present? Is this an idea we can accept and get behind?” If she wants to get properly behind it, just a bit of cash would really help Kingston University to take it forward. So far, it has been funded by a combination of philanthropic support from the fabulous Mohn Westlake Foundation and the university itself. The Mohn Westlake Foundation has a commitment to making education accessible to the most disadvantaged students, and I put on record my thanks. I hope that is another reason why the Minister and the team at DFE will want to look at future skills at Kingston University: the role that it can play in social mobility, social justice and equal opportunity.

I have some final suggestions for things that the Minister might consider when the team visits Kingston University—I hope she noticed the “when”. First, is there a way for the Government to help even more businesses to engage with Kingston University on future skills, perhaps by using the apprenticeship levy or the existing UK Research and Innovation budget? Secondly, will the Government help Kingston University as it continues to evaluate this approach and secure a long-term evidence base that can be shared with other higher education institutions? I am talking about something like a small research and development grant, which might cost as little as £500,000 over the next five years. Thirdly, will the Minister consider making a small innovation grant to enable a pilot expansion of the future skills programme into a secondary school or, indeed, another university? This approach could be taken down into secondary education, and it must surely be tried in other universities. Kingston has already identified potential partners in secondary and tertiary education, so deploying this idea elsewhere really will not cost much. It would be great to trial it with others.

Fourthly, will the Minister request that the Office for Students fund some competitions to support others in higher education that might wish to consider developing and rolling out their own version of Kingston’s future skills?

Finally, perhaps after a visit to Kingston University, which I know is going to happen, will the Minister and her team join me in the House of Commons on 18 June, when Kingston University will be launching its research with Nanyang to leading UK and international businesses, policymakers, academics and students? [Interruption.] That is 18 June—I see that the Minister is writing that down. I am sure that the Minister will see this idea as a very special present, and I want her to enjoy it with some amazing students and businesses. I thank you, Sir Desmond, and the Minister; I hope that she is as excited by the future skills programme as I am.

16:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing a debate on the Government’s support for future skills programmes at universities. I also thank him for speaking positively and passionately about the excellent contribution of Kingston University and, in particular, its navigate, explore and apply programmes. I also want to acknowledge the interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

I heard clearly the invite from the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and although I will not commit my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills, I will draw the invitation and the date of 18 June to her attention. It may surprise the right hon. Member that I undertook a post-qualifying course at Kingston University, so I can testify that it is one of the many outstanding universities in our country.

I will set out the Government’s position in response to the right hon. Member. This debate addresses the need for our educational institutions to evolve and adapt to the demands of the modern workforce. By focusing on future skills, we aim to ensure that our universities are not only centres of academic excellence, but hubs of innovation and practical training. Doing so will equip our students with the necessary skills to thrive in an ever-changing global economy and drive the nation’s growth and prosperity.

Skills are crucial to implementing the plan for change. This Government’s manifesto outlined our commitment to developing a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills. Our aim is to dismantle barriers to opportunity, cultivate a skilled workforce and stimulate economic growth. This strategy will address how we can provide the skills our country requires, both now and in the future.

Our objective is to establish a robust skills system in which everyone is empowered to succeed in life and work, with appropriate support for reskilling to adapt to the evolving economic landscape. That involves fostering a culture of lifelong learning, creating clear and coherent pathways for learners of all ages, and enhancing collaboration among skills partners within a framework of well-defined roles and responsibilities. We will release a vision paper for this strategy soon, and engage with all stakeholders across the system.

A crucial element of the strategy is the reform of higher education, which will ensure that our universities play a pivotal role in supporting the development of future skills. By aligning higher education reforms with our broader skills strategy, we can create a cohesive and comprehensive approach to education and workforce development.

As hon. Members will know, in November the Secretary of State announced five priorities for reform of the higher education system. We will expect our higher education providers, first, to play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students; secondly, to make a stronger contribution to economic growth; thirdly, to play a greater civic role in their communities; fourthly, to raise the bar further on training standards to maintain and improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice; and, finally, to drive a sustained efficiency and reform programme.

The Government are committed to setting out a plan for reform of the higher education sector in the summer. Department for Education officials are currently working in partnership with the sector, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK Research and Innovation and the Office for Students to shape the changes to Government policy that will be needed to support that reform. Taken together, the changes will drive through reform in these areas, put our world-leading higher education sector on a more secure footing, and ensure that the sector is able to provide the skills required to deliver economic growth for the industrial strategy and support the wider change that the country needs in the years to come.

In addition to higher education reform, the establishment of Skills England is a key component of our strategy. It was disappointing that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and his party chose to vote against our transformation of the skills system yesterday, especially given the purpose of this debate. Skills England will play a crucial role in transforming our skills system, and will ensure that our workforce is equipped with the necessary skills to meet the demands of the modern economy. It is currently set up in shadow form within the Department for Education, and there are plans for it to be fully established in 2025. The Education Secretary has appointed Phil Smith CBE as its chair and Sir David Bell as its vice chair.

Skills England will transform the skills system to make it truly world leading. It will help to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that is matched to employers’ needs to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, can access the opportunities they need to thrive. Universities and colleges are already responding to the opportunities and challenges posed by artificial intelligence, and are considering those issues very seriously. Technology works best as a tool used by great teachers, and it is important to take a joined-up approach. Cheating of any kind is unacceptable. It threatens to undermine the reputation of our world-class higher education sector and devalues the hard work of those who succeed on their own merit.

Through Skills England, the Government will build the highly trained workforce that employers need. That will drive economic growth and deliver the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade. We are doing that because skills will play a critical and crucial role in the industrial strategy, driving growth through increased productivity and creating well-paid jobs, which increase opportunities for everyone.

[Tahir Ali]

Does the Minister agree that the skills agenda should not be left simply with universities and colleges, but should start at secondary school and continue all the way through? There should be no barriers to opportunity for young individuals who want to access it.

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. No one is too young to learn a skill. Skills should be learned throughout a child’s educational journey, and they should begin at home.

Higher technical qualifications and universities go hand in hand in developing essential skills for the future for learners from all backgrounds. HTQs have been introduced to champion the quality available at levels 4 and 5, with qualifications that have been independently approved as providing the skills that employers need in specific occupations. They are helping to open up new opportunities for young people and are enabling adults to get the benefit of a university education.

For example, Tarza undertook a level 5 HTQ in healthcare practice at Newcastle College university centre, and is now at the University of Sunderland completing her adult nursing bachelor’s. The HTQ at the university centre gave her the clinical skills she needed and allowed her to learn as a mature student, despite being out of education for so long beforehand. That is one example of many. The Government’s support for the future skills programmes at universities is a comprehensive and forward-thinking strategy designed to meet the evolving needs of the economy and society.

[Gideon Amos]

Where a major international investor is coming into the country—such as Tata, where 4,000 new employees will be needed—does the DFE support colleges and universities to set up the new apprenticeship and training programmes that they need in preparation for that massive international investment?

[Janet Daby]

The hon. Member has pre-empted my next line: I am delighted in the steps that Kingston University has taken and is taking nationally and internationally.

By implementing the post-16 education and skills strategy, reforming higher education, establishing Skills England and introducing the lifelong learning entitlement, we are laying the groundwork for a robust and dynamic skills system. Those initiatives will ensure that our educational institutions are not only centres of academic excellence, but hubs of innovation and practical training. They will provide individuals from all backgrounds with the opportunities they need to succeed, fostering a culture of lifelong learning and continuous development.

As we move forward, it is essential that we continue to engage with all stakeholders, including educational providers, employers and learners to ensure that our strategies are effective and inclusive. Together, we can build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that drives economic growth and social mobility, ensuring a prosperous future for all.

[Ed Davey]

I have listened to the Minister’s speech. I was really impressed by all that she and her colleagues are doing, and I am delighted to know that she studied at Kingston University—she would be welcome back. I know that she is going to extend the invitation to her noble Friend, but could she also extend it to the Secretary of State? Part of the reason why Kingston University wants to partner, work and roll these programmes out with other universities is that it knows that there are a number of potential partners in the north and the north-east, which would be particularly pleasing to the Secretary of State.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Member again for his tenacity, perseverance and pushiness—in the most polite way. Indeed, I will bring the invitation to the attention of the Secretary of State as well. Kingston University is doing some incredible and outstanding work, and that cannot be denied.

Question put and agreed to.

High Street Businesses

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

16:28

[Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for high street business.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. High streets and town centres play a huge role in our communities. They are a place where people come together, they define our sense of place, they can be a source of local pride and they can be home to a huge number of jobs and opportunities. Retail is the largest private sector employer in the UK. When coupled with the hospitality sector, they are some of the biggest drivers of social mobility. There are endless stories of those who started as shelf stackers or pint pullers making it to the boardroom, with jobs that are accessible to all and where hard work can pay off. Then there are the small family businesses—the people-powered engine room of our economy, with individuals who dared to take the risk and have a punt, who get up early to drive their businesses forward, creating jobs while adding colour, flavour and vibrancy to our town centres.

In recent times the rise of online shopping and changing consumer habits, coupled with the cost of living, have created a challenging environment for many businesses operating on our high streets. It is for that reason that now more than ever we should back the great British high street. It is also why it is so astonishing that the Government’s Budget not only failed to back our high streets, but actually seems to be beating them into extinction. The national insurance tax raid, the slashing of small business rates relief and the ending of the community ownership fund will do irreparable damage to our high streets, and that is before we mention the impact and costs of the Employment Rights Bill.

In the last Parliament I campaigned for the 75% relief for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. That was game changing for many, but with the stroke of a pen the Chancellor slashed that relief, ending the lifeline that was thrown to many employers. It is estimated that that will represent a 140% increase in business rates for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will see business rates increase from £3,589 to £8,613. The average pub will see its business rates increase from £3,938 to £9,451, and the average restaurant will also see its bill rocket from £5,051 to £12,122. That is a huge cost for small businesses in an already challenging environment that will prove insurmountable for many. But it does not stop there.

The Government’s national insurance tax raid—their jobs tax—is doing exactly what everybody said it would do. Job losses in the retail sector are already mounting up. Tesco has announced plans to axe 400 jobs. New Look is expected to close as many as 91 stores.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate. The point he makes is a really important one. He has mentioned New Look and Tesco. I think we have already heard comments from Marks and Spencer; HSBC is another group. We are hearing of job losses from some of those big high street names, but smaller businesses are affected as well. Does he agree that we cannot simply keep squeezing and squeezing businesses and thinking, “Well, they are making lots of profit; they can pass it on to their customers.” We squeeze them out of business, which means loss of jobs, loss of vibrancy on our high streets and loss of that sense of community that is so, so important.

[Matt Vickers]

As a former Woolies worker, I know only too well the consequences for businesses. Not only are we squeezing many businesses out of a future; there is a cost to be paid on the prices in those stores and costs on those jobs and the opportunities that they provide for young people and others to get on in life. There are huge costs to what has been done. We can only squeeze so far. The pips are definitely squeaking in retail.

Sainsbury’s has announced plans to axe 3,000 jobs. Retail and hospitality are already two of the most taxed businesses in our economy, but the sectors employ large numbers of people in entry-level or part-time roles, so are disproportionately hit. A CBI survey of business leaders found that 62% are slashing hiring plans. Almost half will be forced to lay off staff, and 46% are looking to delay pay rises for their workforce. Almost every Labour Government in history has left office with more people out of work than when they arrived. With these measures it looks like the Government are trying to set a record. All too often we see employment figures as numbers, but the jobs that will be lost as a result of this measure are not just numbers; they are families without the security of a pay packet, people stripped of ambitions, dreams and aspirations and left on the scrapheap.

The commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association gave a realistic but depressing summary of what the Budget means for retailers. He said it was the

“Worst Budget for the high street in my 35 years working in retail”,

and that it showed a

“complete disregard for the thousands of…shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets. Small retailers, who have already endured years of challenging trading conditions, now face a perfect storm of crippling cost increases; their business rates will more than double…while they’re hit simultaneously with employer National Insurance increases.”

The outlook is bleak for traders because of the Budget, but it goes beyond that.

The previous Government sought to support high streets by responding to changing consumer habits and investing to reconfigure our town centres and create other reasons to go to them. Funds such as the community ownership fund allowed people to take back control of their community assets and turn around vacant, lifeless high streets. They were about more than a lick of paint. They were about creating valuable community spaces and restoring pride in our towns.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Dena, a constituent of mine who runs a small high street business, is seriously concerned about the possible removal of small business rate relief. Does the hon. Member agree that a commitment from the Government about the future of rate relief would give reassurance to high street business owners like Dena?

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Member is right. For many small businesses, the specific relief for leisure, hospitality and retail has already been slashed from 75% to 40%, the end consequence being a more than doubling of what they are paying. It is just not affordable for businesses that are struggling to carry on employing people and doing business, especially with the other challenges that come their way. It is simply not affordable. It is the wrong thing to do, and it has a cost for our communities and those employers.

As I said, funds such as the community ownership fund were not just about a lick of paint but turning around vacant and lifeless high streets, and they created community spaces that were valued, restoring pride in our towns. What is more, community-owned assets are estimated to contribute £220 million to the economy each year.

My constituency of Stockton West saw real progress under the last Government in taking our town centres forward. In Thornaby, the £23.9 million town deal we secured from the last Government has allowed us to achieve many things, including the creation of a new vocational training centre, security and energy interventions in some of the most challenging housing, upgrades to cycling infrastructure and much more. It is allowing us to build a new swimming pool in the town centre, which will drive footfall to businesses.

For years, Thornaby’s skyline was dominated by the eyesore that was the disused Golden Eagle hotel, but now, thanks to money from the last Government and following a long debate with the council, it is finally coming down. Those moves are game changing for Thornaby. They will drive further footfall to local businesses and restore pride in our town centre.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a great champion he is for Stockton West and why he has a reputation in this place for being one of the hardest-working MPs in Teesside. Does he agree that high streets are a lifeline for our local communities? In the Scottish Borders, I am fortunate to have a whole number of small and vibrant high streets, but their businesses are being hammered, not only by the Labour Government’s tax hikes through national insurance but the SNP Government’s tax hikes through business rates.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. Looking at the value of high streets, it is not just about businesses and jobs. They are places where people come together, and they can tackle isolation. There is also the feeling of pride in our town centres. Businesses only have so much money to give in tax, and it is going that bit too far now, to the point where we will lose businesses forever.

I will carry on my list of wonderful things that are going on in Stockton. In Yarm, levelling-up money from the last Government has meant that we are seeing nearby Preston Park improved and upgraded with new exhibition spaces. There are upgraded toilets, a café and more parking. We are sorting the disused aviary and creating a tribute to our railway heritage. This will drive visitor numbers to our area and complement the changes taking place in the high street, where we have seen the town’s skanky public toilets replaced. Streetscape interventions are planned to make the town centre more accessible, and we have gained a much-needed car park. The levelling-up money from the last Government has also helped the town council in Yarm to deliver on its ambition to renew our town hall, creating a visitor centre fit for the amazing high street that Yarm has.

In Stockton, £16 million of future high streets funding has allowed for the complete reconfiguration of our high street, also making way for our new £25 million diagnostic hospital. Securing the money for the diagnostic hospital remains my proudest contribution during my time as an MP, because I know the huge difference it will make to the people of Stockton. We ran a petition and gathered thousands of signatures to demonstrate public support. I was involved with the NHS trust and local authority officers drawing up the bid at its inception, and, when the bid was initially rejected due to a prolonged delivery timetable, I met the Secretary of State to hear his reasoning, and then, that same day, met directors from all the stakeholders to come back with a renewed timetable and a plan to unlock this investment.

In the very near future, the doors will open on that centre, which will provide 104,000 lifesaving tests, checks and scans to local people every year and, importantly, it will be yet another reason for would-be punters to come to our town centre and support local businesses.

Those interventions, funded by the last Government, are game-changing for my community and other communities across the country, repurposing our town centres to drive footfall and keep them as the vibrant hearts of our communities. But now the taps of governmental investment look to have been turned off: efforts to innovate and reconfigure town centres will be paused; our high street businesses are being battered by the Budget; and the consequences are there for all to see. Too many businesses are closing; too many jobs are being lost; and boarded-up high streets and town centres will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres.

I ask the Minister whether the Government really appreciate the challenges posed to high street businesses by the national insurance increase, and, similarly, the impact of slashing the business-rates relief for small leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. Will communities across the country ever again be able to benefit from the game-changing interventions brought about by the community ownership fund, the levelling-up funds, town deals, and other such funds, which allowed for those interventions to protect the future of our high streets?

As a former Woolworths worker, I could go on all day about the loss of iconic retailers, and about the impact of the Budget on post offices, on local pubs, and on opportunities for young people. And I will not even mention my Labour council’s ridiculous plans to introduce car parking charges in Yarm and Stockton high streets—I have probably said enough on that. I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I am a fan of the great British high street, and believe that securing its future should be a priority for any Government.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

We will start with an informal limit of five minutes.

16:42

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate.

I will focus my remarks on Scottish high streets, which should be the beating hearts of our communities, because thriving high streets, and the businesses based there, promote thriving local economies. More than that, they promote a thriving civic culture, a genuine sense of pride among people about the place in which they live and the community that they are part of. Yet, right across Scotland, our high streets and our main streets have seen better days. But the decline of these high streets, main streets and town centres is not inevitable, and communities across Scotland are already taking innovative action to arrest that decline.

I will share just one example from my constituency. I recently had the pleasure of visiting West Calder and Harburn Community Development Trust, which is transforming the iconic Central Bakery in West Calder into the Scottish Co-operative discovery and activity centre. It is an incredible £6 million project that will create jobs, investment and training opportunities in the area, and will honour our co-operative roots.

A few months ago, I met with the traders from West Calder, and they have a vision for the main street that is about solidarity among their businesses, supporting each other to grow and thrive. Projects and businesspeople such as those demonstrate that, with vision, energy and determination, the decline of our town centres and high streets is far from inevitable—and, more than that, that rejuvenation is possible.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, because, for too long, places such as Slough have been painted with empty and boarded-up shop faces. Local businesses are of course at the heart of our community, but, after over a decade of cuts by the previous Tory Governments, and rampant antisocial behaviour, they have been struggling, and have been left hollowed out. Does my hon. Friend agree that allocating more resources and attention to places such as Slough high street is more vital than ever to boost the confidence of local businesses and residents and help revitalise town centres?

[Gregor Poynton]

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I also think that his point about antisocial behaviour is a strong one; these town centres and high streets need to be places where people feel safe and want to spend time with their families.

As I was saying, the rejuvenation of our high streets and town centres is possible, but the problem in Scotland is that the Scottish Government have failed to share that vision, energy and determination. Sadly, there has been little in the way of action from the SNP but—as always with the SNP—over its 18 years in power there has been no shortage of reports. Since 2013, we have had the national town centre review, the town centre action plan, the town centre action plan year 1 progress report, the town centre action plan year 2 progress report, the town centre action plan review, the “A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres” report, a joint response to that report with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the town centre action plan 2, which is a response to that response. Little wonder then that David Lonsdale, the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, spoke recently on the need for coherent policymaking. The fact is that Scotland’s town centres are yet another casualty of the SNP’s mismanagement and chaotic government.

[John Lamont]

In a rare moment of consensus, I agree with the hon. Member’s criticism of the SNP Government. Does he agree with me that one of the changes that could be made in Scotland is to the planning system? If we allow our high streets to be more flexible in how they respond to challenges, that is a way to get new life into something that has been traditionally at the heart of the community.

[Gregor Poynton]

I completely agree. We need to be much more creative about how we use the units. Some of these businesses, frankly, are not coming back to our high streets so we should be honest about that and look at other options such as childcare, co-working spaces and housing in town centres to help rejuvenate those places and get them into action. That creative policymaking in planning is absolutely required.

The Scottish Government can take a number of steps. First, we need a level playing field between the small businesses based on our high streets and the global online retailers. Secondly, as has been discussed, more thought needs to go into the housing stock being built in our towns. With many buildings left empty, it is right to relax planning rules to make it easier to convert shop fronts into flats, while still ensuring quality housing for their residents. Thirdly, the way people work now has changed, and our town centres must reflect that, so we need to prioritise superfast broadband in our town centres. Local planning should also take childcare into account, ensuring the businesses can thrive in the places to be. Fourthly, councils should be encouraged to use the powers available to them to make ownership data on high street properties public, so that the community has the opportunity to step in and take over some units. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, town centres will never thrive unless people feel safe in them, so a focus on safety is key.

All those ideas can perhaps contribute to making our towns better places to live; none would constitute a revolution, but they would be revolutionary for millions of people because, for too long, main streets in towns and villages such as Fauldhouse, Broxburn, West Calder, Uphall and others in my constituency have been neglected by the SNP Government. This can change: we can refresh and rejuvenate our high streets, but it will require fresh and rejuvenated leadership.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. We have done our sums; Members have three minutes each.

16:47

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

I would thank you for calling me, Sir Desmond, but you have given me a real challenge. Nevertheless, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate.

We all know that for generations, high streets have been at the heart of our communities—providing spaces for our local businesses to thrive, for social connections to flourish and for economic growth to be driven from the grassroots, yet across the United Kingdom, high streets are in decline. Businesses are closing at an alarming rate, there is crime and antisocial behaviour, depressing footfall, and outdated business rate systems stifling local enterprise.

In my constituency of Surrey Heath, we have numerous high streets across market towns and villages, all of which are interconnected to a larger ecosystem. Camberley, our historic market town, has struggled to grow over the past five years. Despite being just 28 miles from central London, the town centre is suffering from increased vacancy rates, crime, antisocial behaviour and public infrastructure that persistently fails to meet the needs and expectations of local businesses and residents.

Our high streets should be hubs of activity, but they have been undermined by the long-term absence of Government support and mounting economic pressures. One of the greatest challenges that I hear about from local businesses is related to the broken business rates system. In 2025-26, for example, despite paying business rates in excess of £30 million, businesses in Surrey Heath will see just £900,000 of their contributions re-invested into their local community, which is just 3% of the business rates raised. The vast majority of revenue raised through business rates is spirited away from the place of generation and collection by central Government.

Of course, that is not in any way unique to Surrey Heath. It is a national problem that discourages investment in our high street while allowing online retailers and large multinationals to operate under a significantly lighter tax burden. The Lib Dems have long argued that the business rate system is outdated, unfair and penalises bricks and mortar businesses, which are vital to our communities,

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My hon Friend is making a fantastic speech. He will know the importance of pubs to our high streets, particularly in rural areas, to drive footfall and support our rural economies. I spoke to a tenant of a pub in Castle Cary who is trying to develop a community space for social and cultural cohesion, at a time when the town is growing quite significantly. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s proposed changes to business rates for properties with rateable values above £500,000 are potentially ruinous for many pubs on our high streets and in our rural villages?

[Dr Pinkerton]

I agree with that assessment. I have pubs in my patch that say exactly the same things to me. They are not in the same kind of more rurally sensitive communities that my hon. Friend refers to, but I fundamentally agree with her analysis. That is not a situation that is unique to Surrey Heath or to my hon Friend’s patch at all. I hope that the Government will commit to fundamental reform of that particular tax structure. Another issue that I am seeing in Surrey Heath is the growth of shoplifting and antisocial behaviour. It deters customers, it suppresses footfall and it makes it more difficult for businesses to operate and thrive.

In Camberley, our main market town, that is causing significant losses to businesses, and business owners tell me that they are tempted to move away from our community altogether because of the challenges they face. Police have issued dispersal orders across many market towns across this country, but I would like to ask the Secretary of State explicitly what assessment he has made as to the effectiveness of those particular measures. There should be far greater police visibility in our town centres to deter crime and to give businesses the encouragement and support that they need to thrive.

In conclusion, and because I only have a few seconds left, will the Minister say whether the Government have considered reforming business rates to ensure local communities retain more of the revenue generated by local high street businesses—as these communities expect to happen already? Also, what support is in place for high street businesses facing closure due to crime and antisocial behaviour?

16:52

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing the debate and particularly for devoting so much of his speech to outlining some of the achievements of our local Labour council in Stockton in developing our town centres.

Stockton is known for having the widest high street in Britain, but it is the breadth of the vision of our Labour council that I would really like to share with colleagues today, because I think there are some opportunities that might be of benefit to other areas. Labour councillor Nigel Cooke said many years ago that the future of the high street is about leisure, culture and recreation as much as it is about shops, and Stockton Council have put everything behind achieving that. The single biggest, most noticeable thing anyone will see on Stockton High Street—or will not see if they go today—is the former Castlegate shopping centre, which was demolished by the council to much local opposition. That resulted in a much higher rate of occupancy, up to 90%, at the other end of the street, but opened up for the first time in hundreds of years a vista across the high street to the river, the Cleveland hills and Roseberry Topping beyond, creating an urban park that will be the centre of events in the future. Stockton has turned itself into an event town, hosting many events on the high street and in the other towns in the borough throughout the year.

That has given us the opportunity to attract new businesses into the borough. Contrary to the usual doom and gloom about Stockton we hear from the hon. Member for Stockton West, I took the opportunity to talk to the Stockton business improvement district before coming here today, and it told me that three businesses this week are planning to open up on Stockton high street in the hospitality and leisure area. We have great entrepreneurs such as Nathan Lee, who has bought the Teesside Princess pleasure cruiser and who is fizzing with ideas for things that he wants to do to bring more footfall to our high street in that area. Remember Me Tearooms were sort of blocked in beside that terrible shopping centre and will now increase capacity so that they can serve people who are visiting the park. It is not only happening in Stockton town centre, but also in Norton, another lovely town in our area, which is a basis not only for the daytime but the night-time economy.

That brings me to safety. In our area, under the last Conservative Government, police officer numbers reduced by 550 compared with under the last Labour Government, but I made a commitment to have more officers on the street. With the £2.4 million we are getting from the Government, there will be 40 additional officers on the street.

[Matt Vickers]

Does the hon. Member know how much national insurance contributions are costing our police force, and the impact that they will have on police numbers in Cleveland?

[Chris McDonald]

As the police and crime commissioner for Cleveland said, the increase in national insurance contributions will not have an impact. In fact, overall there will be an increase of 40 police officers in Stockton.

[Matt Vickers]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris McDonald]

I will not give way any more. The hon. Member might want to listen to what I have to say and intervene later. There will be an increase of 40 police officers, including some dedicated to the high street, so that people feel safe. They did not feel safe under the last Government; that was what drove people out of the high street. Civic enforcement patrols and police officers will ensure that people feel safe in Stockton. This Government have also ended the effective decriminalisation of shoplifting for items under £200. Rather than standing with shoplifters, we are standing with shop workers.

I think that every child who grows up in Billingham thinks that every town in the country has an ice rink, but they do not. There is one in Billingham, and the council has invested in Billingham Forum, where it is. The last Government left the residents of Billingham in the shameful condition of having been promised £20 million, but with no money there, and I thank the Government for coming forward with that funding, so that we can bring 10 derelict buildings back into use and create new commercial and retail space.

What about the future? The council is creating a health and care zone alongside our new diagnostic centre. It is not a hospital—it is a centre. Teesside is hoping to have a medical school there as well, so we will have medical students there. I am supporting and championing these initiatives. Quite shortly, Billingham will be the UK’s largest centre for biomanufacturing. I encourage all colleagues to come to Stockton for the Stockton and Darlington railway 200th anniversary this year, and we will welcome them to our town.

16:56

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on high street businesses, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) again for securing it. He clearly demonstrates what a local champion he is for his constituency. I have visited Stockton on many occasions, and I have even been to Billingham and been on the ice rink—more than one or two years ago.

High streets are the beating heart of our communities. They provide jobs, essential services and a vital sense of place, but all too often small businesses feel that they are fighting an uphill battle—grappling with rising costs, declining footfall, an ever-changing retail landscape and, of course, Government policy. Many of those challenges are not new, but they have been fuelled by covid, the cost of living crisis and rising inflation. I increasingly hear from businesses in my constituency that more needs to be done.

In Aldridge-Brownhills, we are fortunate to have a vibrant network of independent businesses, many of them family-run shops and essential services that our residents rely on every day. One of these is The Plaice to Eat, which is the most fantastic local fish and chip shop in Brownhills. If hon. Members are passing, I recommend its battered chips, with are a local Black Country speciality.

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On behalf of Scottish Members, can I also recommend a deep-fried Mars bar supper and a haggis supper, which are other delicacies that fish and chip shops might be able to provide?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a visit to Scotland, many years ago, when I tried a deep-fried Mars bar; I think it was in Blairgowrie. I must admit that I have never had deep-fried haggis—I am not sure about that one—but I have certainly tried the Mars bar.

Despite their hard work and determination, many businesses are struggling. I am in regular contact with local businesses, and they tell me quite candidly about the financial pressures they face. One issue that comes up time and again is the crushing burden of employer national insurance contributions. Quite simply, they are a tax on jobs. They actively punish the very businesses we should be supporting. Businesses are being squeezed into cutting staff hours and freezing recruitment. In some cases, as we have heard, they are shutting their doors altogether. Household names that we have heard today—WHSmith, New Look and HSBC—are among those affected. When they are gone, they are gone forever.

Let us be clear: this is not just an economic issue; it is a community issue. When a high street business closes, that affects us all. It means fewer jobs, less investment in our local economy and empty shop fronts, which drain the vibrancy of our centres. The Government cannot claim to support small businesses while quietly taxing them out of existence.

In Brownhills, one of the most pressing concerns is the derelict Ravenscourt shopping precinct. Once a thriving hub, it has now become an eyesore and for far too long has attracted antisocial behaviour. Local business owners and residents are rightly frustrated by the slow progress. I am, too. My local council and our councillors are working incredibly hard to deliver on this, with plans for redevelopment including the prospect of a new supermarket, but delays, the need for a complex compulsory purchase order, and drawn-out negotiations over remaining units are stalling much-needed investment.

Such stagnation is not unique to Brownhills. Across the country, high streets are being held back by vacant buildings that discourage footfall and undermine local economies, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions only adds to the difficulties. If this Government are serious about revitalising our high streets, there are two things they could do to make a big difference to all our high streets: look again at both employer national insurance contributions and business rates.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Josh Fenton-Glynn, you have two minutes.

17:00

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this debate, which has been a wonderful tour of Members’ high streets, although, as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I cannot recommend a deep-fried Mars bar.

I pay tribute to those who, on top of running their own businesses, put time into a broader business community, such as Calder Valley’s town deal boards, including in Todmorden, Elland and Brighouse, and those who have helped their towns to thrive by having a bigger vision for what their towns can be. Even though I did not always see eye to eye with local businesses on parking charges when I was a councillor, those businesses show how the spark of an idea can end up as a dream that becomes part of a community of successful businesses, because success breeds success.

Calder Valley is a series of towns, all of which have their own personalities. A great proponent of this theory is the Totally Locally campaign, a national campaign that was founded in Calder Valley and remains active in the towns of Brighouse, Elland, Todmorden and Hebden Bridge. It extols the virtues of local businesses’ working together and the power of spending money locally. Their annual “Magic Tenner” campaign uses analysis from the New Economics Foundation that found that £10 spent in a local shop could be worth as much as £50 to the local economy, as those local shops use local suppliers, so the money is recycled again and again. The campaign highlights that by having participating businesses offer deals for a tenner, and we are going to see that operating throughout Calder Valley and across the country starting next week and running until 16 March. I urge people to take part in those Totally Locally campaigns. I pay tribute to the small-business owners of Calder Valley who started with a dream and ended up building a proud business community.

17:02

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on setting the scene. I wish to give, as I always do, a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate. I know the Minister is eager to hear it, and I am pleased to provide it.

There are so many issues facing our local high streets; I will name just a few. There are the empty units that ultimately reduce footfall as well as consumer choice. There has been a dramatic increase in online shopping—in a couple of clicks, customers can now order nearly anything they want online. Local businesses are struggling with the high cost of energy, rent and business rates. The price of electricity and gas has to be sustainable for businesses for the future.

I want to mention two towns. Ballynahinch is a fantastic place to nip down to and do some shopping. Newtownards is the main town of the borough, where you can get everything you want in terms of home comforts and food. It has been a market town since the 1600s and I am pleased that, even today, we have the market every Saturday in Newtownards town. It brings in people from all over the Province and creates, by its very nature, a buzz around the area on the weekends.

I love to see the many independent retailers on the high streets, as they are the backbone of the economy. In Newtownards we have hairdressers, salons, fashion shops and family-run coffee shops. We have a coffee culture in Newtownards now as well. The charity shops cannot be dismissed, by the way, because there are always good products for sale. My mother was one of those people who was always keen to buy something for a pound—definitely an Ulster Scot, that’s for sure. We must continue to invest in public spaces to fill the gaps and engage further with local councils to see what more can be done to revamp business rates so that local shops can afford to stay open.

[Mr Dhesi]

After more than a decade of Tory Government neglect, the number of police community support officers has halved, and the number of special constables is down by more than two thirds since 2012. That has left places like Slough High Street plagued by an epidemic of antisocial behaviour. Does the hon. Member agree that this Government must continue to prioritise the safety of our high streets and ensure that they can thrive, especially by targeting shoplifting?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—of course he is—about making sure that high streets are safe and secure. We have had a number of knife threats in shops in Newtownards, and if it had not been for the presence of the police there to stop that, it could have escalated to something very much worse.

I look to the Minister for his commitment to local businesses. I make this request of him, as I often do: will he engage directly with the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly? I think it is better when we do things together. We can exchange good ideas and see how we can do things better.

17:05

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I have never kept it a secret that I am a proud Falkirk boy, I live in our town centre, I do most of my shopping on our high street, and a couple of hours before the Bairns kick-off on a Saturday at 3 pm you will rarely find me more than a few feet far from a pint at one of our town centre pubs. Businesses on Falkirk High Street have for years been calling out for support, whether it be on parking, where the SNP Falkirk council stopped the popular “Free after 3” parking scheme, or the closure of Falkirk town hall in 2022. That was previously a major earner for our town centre on show night. Luckily, a replacement town hall in the centre of Falkirk is finally progressing, with cross-party support. It is something I strongly endorse as a measure to regenerate our town centre. I acknowledge that for businesses across the UK there are challenges, but this is felt sharply in Scotland; about three shops a day closed in 2024.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to rebalancing the tax burden away from the high street and towards the out-of-town giants. I urge them to move quickly and firmly in that direction. The Scottish Government must also look at that urgently for our high street.

[Gregor Poynton]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the Scottish Government need a new direction on business rates, because not only have they not passed on the money—the Barnett consequentials that have come from the UK Government—to hospitality and retail, but they have failed the town centres over the last 18 years?

[Euan Stainbank]

Absolutely. This is a point that many hospitality businesses have made. It was a narrower scope for business rates relief that was passed in yesterday’s Scottish Budget Bill than was the case in the Labour Budget, which I welcomed. The Scottish Government should revisit that decision.

I pay tribute to the fantastic work that the Falkirk business improvement district does in our town. It knows how to deliver on local priorities; not only is it on the ground with its finger on the pulse of the challenges facing Falkirk High Street, but it is accountable to the town centre businesses in Falkirk that pay the BID levy. I thank Linton Smith, who is stepping back from the Falkirk Delivers board after an exceptional 30 years of service to our town. Elaine Grant and all her team at Falkirk BID are an asset to our high street.

Although the impact of energy shocks around the globe and the behaviour of energy giants have left consumers’ bills spiralling over the last few years, the impacts on high street businesses have also been clear. I have heard stories from Falkirk High Street of bills quadrupling over the winter, compared with where they were before the pandemic, and staff wearing two jumpers while working indoors. We must get serious across this House about building cheap, clean, British energy as soon as possible, so that both our constituents at home and those who open businesses on the high street can benefit.

Increasing criminal behaviour on our high street is another concern. In my teens and early 20s, I worked pulling pints and serving tables, and when walking back to my car or jumping on a bus I noticed an incrementally more hostile atmosphere. Unite Hospitality has led the way in relation to that trend, and I reiterate my endorsement of its Get Me Home Safely campaign, which I and, at the time, council colleagues passed at a meeting of Falkirk council in 2022. Hospitality workers have endured unacceptable threats and physical and sexual violence, and we must do more to work with employers to make our high streets safer.

My constituents Carolyn and Gordon are the long-term proprietors of Gordon’s Newsagents in Camelon. Recently, they were subjected to two incidents of theft, violence and vandalism when they refused to sell alcohol to those who had failed to provide identification. Crime impacts margins and increases the likelihood of shop closure.

I will finish on this point. Businesses comply with licensing conditions to protect young people and prevent crime and disorder. Their story signals that they often fail to receive the same protection in return. We need more police on our streets.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

We will now hear from Jas Athwal, after whom we will hear from Steve Darling. May I ask you, Mr Athwal, to be very brief?

17:09

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate.

If we want to revive our high streets, we need innovative solutions that bring customers back, as well as the basics of law and order, as has been mentioned. People must feel safe and it must be a pleasant experience. In my constituency of Ilford South, parking charges were preventing shoppers from visiting the high streets. Shops could not compete with the large supermarkets that offered free parking. As leader of the council, I listened to their local concerns and we intervened. Despite facing relentless cuts across the council, we introduced one hour of free parking. Of course, that one simple decision ensured that footfall came back to our high streets: one simple change made a huge difference.

Ilford is certainly home to growing businesses, but one of the biggest issues for businesses is the lack of footfall from outside the area. That is why accessible local transport is so vital. I welcome the Superloop introduced by the Mayor of London, as well as the Elizabeth line, which has turned Ilford into somewhere people flock to from miles around.

Before the election, a major barrier to budding entrepreneurs was the challenge of securing affordable premises. Last year, the Government launched the high street rental auction scheme, empowering local leaders to auction leases on premises that have stood empty for over a year. With one in seven properties on our high streets sitting vacant, the initiative is a crucial step towards reversing that trend. Despite the decline, our high streets can be revived and businesses can flourish once again through increased incentives for customers, lower burdens for businesses, a pleasant experience for shoppers and a level playing field for all.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Steve Darling. Five minutes, please.

17:11

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I will not take up all that time because I know that time is pressing.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on obtaining this extremely important debate. The issue has been well debated so far. I will focus on antisocial behaviour and its impact, with communities feeling unsafe to go out into our town centres. I go back to the cuts, probably about 14 years ago, to the Supporting People budget. Effectively, 90% of that budget was binned by the Conservative council at that time. It was supporting people with drug and alcohol issues, as well as many other vulnerable people who needed support.

At the last count in Torbay, 40 people were sleeping rough across the bay, which is absolutely shocking. The number has more than doubled. Sadly, people sleeping rough make others feel unsafe, and therefore unwilling to go into our town centres. We need more funding to support people, but we also need the stick of more bobbies on the beat—more uniformed officers who can be seen supporting our communities.

I will turn to the main meat here. We have seen the steady decline of our town centres over decades. Out-of-town and now online shopping have had a devastating effect on our town centres. We need to ensure that local authorities have the ability to place-shape, whether that is having influence over stopping immediate transfer from retail to residential, or whether it is enhancing and speeding up the abilities of compulsory purchase orders. I am only too alive to one case in my constituency of Torbay. It straddled the Ukraine war, which meant that we saw a massive boost in the cost to redevelop Paignton town centre, and now that particular location is just a car park. We have that uncertainty, and if we want to drive that imagination for our communities, we need certainty, so please can we look at streamlining those compulsory purchase orders?

Finally, colleagues have mentioned the massive impact of the national insurance contribution hikes. Although the policy is still slightly over the horizon, its cold hand is sending a chill through the heart of our town centres. The Conservatives may have almost nailed down the coffin lid on our town centres, but I fear that the Labour party will actually put in the last nail with NICs.

17:14

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. He is right: high streets are the beating heart of communities and local economies across the whole of the United Kingdom. I see that in my own constituency, with the wonderful mix of retail, hospitality and services on high streets such as Wendover, Princes Risborough and Great Missenden, as well as those important smaller retail parades in villages such as Prestwood and Haddenham. They really are, as others have said, the beating heart of our local economies and communities.

Unlike Labour, the Conservatives want businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money to grow and invest. In Government, we delivered the biggest long-term business tax cut in modern British history, to the tune of £11 billion per year. We froze the small business multiplier, saving an average shop £1,650 a year, and extended the retail hospitality and leisure relief for a year, which directly supports high street businesses. We took a third of properties out of business rates completely through small business rate relief and froze the tax rate for the last three years. We introduced a 75% business rate relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, meaning that the business rates of the average pub in England were £6,650 lower than they would have been.

Meanwhile, breaking their manifesto promise not to increase the amount of cash raised by the levy, this Labour Government are delivering a stealth tax rise of £900 million this year and £2.7 billion next year through higher business rates. Rates paid by thousands of high street businesses will more than double next year as a result. Unlike Labour, we in Government cut national insurance contributions for businesses. We abolished an entire class of NICs and cut the NIC top rate from 9% to 6%. Labour’s first Budget launched a £25 billion tax raid on British business, breaking its manifesto promise and imposing a jobs tax. It has increased employer national insurance contributions, clearly breaking commitments made throughout its general election campaign. That jobs tax will increase the cost of employment to our high street employers and everyone else by £900 for the average worker.

Labour’s Budget nearly halved business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, more than doubling the business rates of eligible businesses. Atlas Group estimates that the reduction from 1 April of the business rate discount for retail, hospitality and leisure firms in England from 75% to 40% in the ’25-’26 financial year will mean an average 140% rise in business rate bills for more than 250,000 high street premises in England. The average shop will now see its business rates bill spiral from £3,589 to £8,613 next April for the ’25-’26 year. The average business rate bill for pubs will increase from £3,938 to £9,451. Restaurants will see their average bill rising from £5,051 to £12,122.

In short, this Labour Government have

“complete disregard for the thousands of hard-working shop owners who form the backbone of our high streets”;

not my words, but those of the commercial director at the British Independent Retailers Association. Labour looked business owners in the eye and told them it would be on their side, and at the first opportunity it imposed a slam dunk of measures to make it impossible to grow, to invest or even, in some cases, to survive. The Labour Government have zero credibility on this issue now. They are not the champions of our high streets that they want to proclaim themselves. The nation took them at their word, and their word has proven to be a gross misrepresentation.

17:19

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Before I respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, I should say that I am a proud member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, a union that works tirelessly on behalf of its 360,000 members to negotiate better pay and conditions for shop workers throughout the country.

I thank all the many Members who participated in this worthwhile and timely debate, and pay tribute to each and every one who spoke compellingly about the high streets in their constituencies. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for securing the debate and thank him for speaking so eloquently—I particularly enjoyed his reference to the “skanky toilets”—in support of our high streets. He has shown considerable interest in this policy area for many years, not least as chair of the former all-party parliamentary group for the future of retail. It is fair to say that he has been a persistent champion of high streets, not just in his constituency, but across the country, so his insights and views are always welcome.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for speaking so powerfully about the perpetual review roundabout that we see in Scotland in relation to planning and, alas, the Scottish Government’s approach to the high streets. I acknowledge the real, if temporary, cross-party consensus identified by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—albeit that I am not sure there is quite as wide a culinary Caledonian consensus on the health and dietary benefits of the deep-fried Mars bar. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) and confirm that we share his ambition to improve safety on our high streets—an issue to which I shall return.

I also pay generous tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). There is no stronger champion than he for Stockton and for the interests of its residents. I was intrigued to hear about the three businesses that are planning to open on Stockton high street. That is indeed welcome news, and I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing it to the attention of the House. He also raised the critical issue of policing and public safety—again, I shall return to that.

The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) spoke about the fiscal measures announced in the Budget, to which I will also return, although I note that she offered no alternatives in the course of her speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) added a perhaps necessary health warning about deep-fried Mars bars and spoke passionately about the Calder Valley businessmen and women who started with a dream and built a proud business community. There could be no more eloquent description of the experience of many entrepreneurs on high streets the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.

Reference to the whole of the United Kingdom brings me to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who described his mother’s careful management of the family budget—an all-too-common concern during the cost of living crisis of recent years, after 14 years of Conservative economic mismanagement. Be assured, the Government want to ensure that businesses in every part of the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales and in England—benefit from measures that deliver economic stability and the Government’s mission of growth.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), as both a proud Bairn and a self-described Falkirk boy, described where and how he spends his Saturday afternoons. I am not sure that every Member of the House would be wise to do that; none the less, it was helpful and educative for the rest of us to understand his commitment to the Falkirk community. He paid generous tribute to the hospitality workers in Falkirk and in communities and high streets the length and breadth of the country and highlighted the dangers they face. I concur that a new direction for Scotland is needed, not only in relation to our high streets, planning and retail crime, but much, much more fundamentally.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke powerfully, and I noted his remarks carefully. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) recognised a truth sadly missing from some of the other speeches when he acknowledged, candidly and rightly, that high streets have faced challenges for decades. These are constantly changing retail offerings that we need to recognise are subject to pressures far beyond the reach of individual Governments, but reflect changing patterns of life, of culture and of leisure.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) spoke of high streets as the beating heart of our communities—on that at least we agree—before making a speech that omitted the fact that Liz Truss crashed the economy and left not only an impaired fiscal balance sheet, but a flatlining economy and devastated public services. Again, I waited with bated breath for the Conservatives’ official spokesman to offer their fiscal alternative, in the teeth of the criticism directed toward the Government—but alas, I waited in vain.

[Wendy Morton]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

Time is against me. I want to address as many of the points raised today as I can, but before I do, I want to say a bit about the Government’s wider commitment to supporting our high streets.

Hon. Members in all parts of the House agree that high streets play a vital role in providing a place for communities to come together, to work, to socialise, to shop and to access essential services. The sectors that underpin the high streets play a huge role in our broader economy. The retail sector directly supports some 2.9 million jobs across the UK, and in 2023 generated £110 billion gross value added. The UK hospitality sector employs about 2.2 million people; it is estimated to have contributed about £52 billion GVA in 2023, and it remains a key driver of the UK’s tourism industry.

Let us be clear: high street businesses can prosper and grow only on firm foundations of economic stability—and that, alas, is certainly not what we inherited last July. Instead, we faced a £22 billion black hole created by the previous Government, featuring hundreds of unfunded pressures on public finances and countless uncosted measures that failed to withstand even the slightest scrutiny. The hon. Member for Stockton West spoke eloquently about his experience working for Woolies, but I respectfully point out that Woolies ceased to trade under a Conservative Government—a fact he omitted from his speech.

At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made some, frankly, very difficult choices, but decisions were necessary to fix the foundations of a broken economy—

17:26

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

17:41

On resuming—

[Mr Alexander]

Along with every Member who has spoken in this debate, the Government want to support strong, thriving, mixed-use high streets that generate high footfall and high degrees of social capital in their local communities. That is why we are focused on a five-point plan to breathe life back into local high streets—high streets that, if we are candid, have faced challenges from changing retail patterns for some decades now. The plan includes addressing antisocial behaviour and retail crime—an issue raised by a number of people around the Chamber—as well as reforming the business rates system, working with the banking industry to roll out banking hubs, stamping out the vexed issue of late payments and empowering communities to make the most of vacant properties, which was also raised frequently this evening.

In our first seven months in office, we have made good progress with our plan. As the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire knows, just yesterday we introduced the Crime and Policing Bill, which will scrap the effective immunity for low-value shoplifting and do more to protect retail workers from assault; I hope it can find consensus in all parts of the House. We are providing additional funding to crack down on the organised gangs who target retailers and have done so with worrying frequency over recent years. Only this morning, we announced the expansion of the sector-based work academy programme—SWAPs—to create 100,000 more places over the next financial year. That will provide opportunities for participants in England and Scotland receiving certain benefits to train towards a job in hospitality and other high street sectors. We followed through on our promise to reform business rates and level the playing field for high streets across the country with lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and we want to build on that momentum with our upcoming small business strategy, which will set out how we intend to support our small businesses on the high street and beyond.

Our strategy comes with a clear recognition that the way we work and live is changing in a fast-evolving landscape. We must therefore ensure that our approach reflects the continually changing reality of our high streets. We have to make sure that we are supporting services that are fit for modern life, recognising that—for all the eloquence with which people have spoken this evening—no two high streets are in fact the same.

Let me now turn to some of the specific issues that hon. Members addressed, including, critically, crime and antisocial behaviour. Business rates reform and our approach to national insurance contributions are some of the economic levers taken by the Treasury to support the high street; but to create thriving high street environments takes a whole-of-Government approach. The Department for Business and Trade is working closely with other Departments, particularly the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Home Office, to co-ordinate activity that supports high streets and their businesses.

A vital element of creating the thriving high streets of which so many Members have spoken is ensuring that they are a safe and comfortable environment both for business leaders and for shoppers. I have mentioned this week’s introduction of the Crime and Policing Bill, a central part of the Government’s plan for change and indeed our safer streets mission. The Bill will ensure that the police and courts have the necessary powers to help to tackle assaults against retail workers and shop theft. It will create a stand-alone offence for assaulting a retail worker, in order to protect staff, measure the scale of the problem and drive down retail crime. It is simply unacceptable that shop theft, and violence and abuse towards retail workers, continue to rise. We ask retailers to perform a significant act of public service—

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order.

17:45

Motion lapsed, and sitting adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 10(14)).