Debates between Helen Maguire and Susan Murray during the 2024 Parliament

High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

Debate between Helen Maguire and Susan Murray
Tuesday 30th June 2026

(1 month, 1 week ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.

Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on business rates.

I have heard repeatedly from businesses in Mid Dunbartonshire that they are unable to afford to hire young people and give them their first experience of work, or that they have had to cut their hours due to rising costs. At the same time that they are being hit by rising costs and static VAT thresholds, they are competing with online giants that pay a fraction of the tax they pay. Amazon’s five main UK companies paid just 7.1% corporation tax last year, while our main high street businesses are expected to pay 25%.

The Government have the ability to put us on a different path by cutting VAT for hospitality and attractions. Our cafés and restaurants are the beating heart of the high street. They bring footfall, they create atmosphere, they give people a reason to go to town centres, and they create community. A great example of this is the Bookmonger at Bearsden Cross, which celebrates its first birthday on 11 July. Aside from transforming the Cross with a new, fresh business idea, Caitlyn, who owns the business, is a cancer survivor who raises a lot of money for the Beatson cancer centre in Glasgow, and I hope that this business can also survive.

The Government should close loopholes that allow online giants to pay a fraction of the tax that our high street traders pay in full. We cannot ask local businesses to compete with not only the economies of scale that those conglomerates bring, but a tax system rigged to punish those who play by the rules. The sad truth is that the soul of our town centres is being slowly eroded: businesses are taxed into administration, their customers have moved online and our favourite shops are slowly replaced by the neon signs of vape shops and barbers. The Government have a choice to back our local businesses.

Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
- Hansard - -

I have many residents who are really concerned about the high number of illegal vape and barber shops. Epsom and Ewell police force is taking action: it has targeted shops selling illicit vapes, with four busts so far, which is fantastic. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to do more to support local community policing and give local authorities more powers?

Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need more powers to make sure that the playing field is fair for local businesses in our town centres.

Finally, I ask the Government not to continue loading costs on businesses that hold our town centres together. I ask them to review business rates, cut VAT for hospitality, level the playing field on corporation tax and back the businesses that make us proud of where we come from.

Online Harm: Child Protection

Debate between Helen Maguire and Susan Murray
Tuesday 24th February 2026

(5 months, 2 weeks ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

We have all learned that if an online service is free, we are the product. That is the business model used by the social media giants. They track what we watch, what we click, what we like and what we fear. They then build detailed profiles of our behaviour and they turn that behaviour into data and advertising revenue.

These platforms do not just host content; they actively shape what we see. They promote material, target adverts and keep users online for as long as possible because the longer we stay, the more money they make, and that is where the problem lies. The algorithms used by social media giants are designed for engagement, not wellbeing. They feed on outrage, division and shock to keep us scrolling. Users are pushed towards more extreme content, not because it is true and not because it is healthy, but because it is profitable. We can see the consequences in the real world.

Young people in particular are vulnerable to these pipelines of harmful content. Misogynistic and extremist figures, including Andrew Tate, rise to prominence through social media ecosystems that reward provocation and repetition. What starts as healthy curiosity or pushing the boundaries in young people can quickly lead to radicalisation. Given the serious harms caused by under-regulated social media, we have a responsibility to act quickly in a defined timeline to protect children and young people.

Helen Maguire Portrait Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
- Hansard - -

Last week, the chief executive officer of Meta took the stand in Los Angeles as part of a landmark trial examining Instagram’s impact on the mental health of young users. This highlights the confusion about who is responsible for what in the online space. We know that we need Government legislation, but we also need clarity on what social media companies are responsible for. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time that we establish a clear framework and proper accountability so responsibilities are understood and the right people are held to account for any failings?

Susan Murray Portrait Susan Murray
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I absolutely agree; it is important that it is clear who is accountable for the harms that occur. That is why I urge the Government to work with the Liberal Democrats to introduce age ratings for social media. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) so clearly laid out, ratings help parents and carers to keep children safe. We already accept them in other areas of life—not every film is suitable for every age group, so we rate them; not every game is suitable for every child, so we rate them. Social media should be no different.

If a platform, unasked, can expose a child to violent content, misogyny, self-harm content or extremist propaganda, it must not be treated as if it were harmless by default. This is not about banning social media or saying it has no value. It can be a brilliant tool for learning, as we have heard. It can help people stay in touch with friends and family, as we have heard. It can open up access to information, support and communities that people might not otherwise find. Yet those benefits do not cancel out the harms. We are not trying to get rid of social media, but we must take a sensible approach to ensure that multibillion-pound companies do not push products that maximise profits while our children pay the price. We regulate risk in other areas. We cannot be beholden to tech giants; we have a responsibility to regulate here.