What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 11 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 10 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
My hon. Friend puts her finger on a particular problem: the grouping together of various steels in the measures, which I recognise is an issue. As I have mentioned before, the quota is designed to solve the problem. I would appreciate it if she could share the issue with my officials; tonnage grade product specification is particularly helpful. It would be very helpful if she could share those details.
There are two things there. Our steel strategy said that we had an ambition to increase domestic steel production from 30% to 50% of market share. I have mentioned that the Speciality Steel sale has been delayed by a few months, but that component of the UK steel market is not the largest part. There are about 1 million tonnes of capacity there, whereas British Steel and Tata Steel each produce about 3 million tonnes. I realise that we are talking about different grades, but to answer the hon. Lady’s specific question: the overall capacity issue is very much about those two larger companies.
I am aware of the challenges for spring steel businesses. Spring steels are incredibly difficult to produce and use high-quality, high-value steel. They are clearly within the capability of Speciality Steel, but the business is not operating. Given the number of requests for meetings, we might do a roundtable or something similar, but there will certainly be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to speak to officials. Perhaps we can get together with the Minister for Trade.
The hon. Member talks of tool steels. As I have said, this is about steels that are made or could be made in the UK. Clearly, for the steel businesses to be profitable, we need to—[Interruption.] Well, the phrase “could be made” is actually quite important, because the Speciality Steel business was unable to compete with subsidised steel coming in from China. If the Opposition say they want our steel strategy set by the Chinese Government, that would be why our steel industry is in the position it is. I am sympathetic to the calls from UK businesses to manage the transition, and I am trying to do that. Understandably, however, I do not believe that our steel strategy should be set by the Chinese Government.
As my hon. Friend knows, I very much have an emotional attachment to that plant, having worked there myself, and what he says is right. We can contrast the situation in 2015 with the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that we are passing—opposed every step of the way by the Opposition—and the action we are taking on Speciality Steels. When the plant he refers to closed, I was in the business of looking for a buyer, and I was told by the Conservative Government that I had just 10 days; we have given months of support to Speciality Steels, and we are determined to see that process through.
Yes, I am concerned about that. As I have said, these measures are primarily about supporting the production of steel in the UK. I do not know if this is specific to the business mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but many of the businesses we have heard about rely on supply from the EU, and that is where our discussions with the EU—linking discussions, essentially—are so critical.
The right hon. Member is quite right that there is a 12-month review. I thank him for his engagement, particularly with Stannah Stairlifts, but also for his further suggestions to me privately about how we might manage the transition. I want to reassure him that I am looking very carefully at the ideas he has raised. To be clear about this, I think everyone in this House believes in free and fair trade, and we all wish we lived in a world where there were no tariffs. UK Steel has welcomed these measures, but has also said it would prefer it if there were not any tariffs. Unfortunately, this is the product of the world we are in. I do not think this is “mucking about with tariffs.” Essentially, we are responding to the global trading situation, and trying to ensure we have a strategy for a viable UK industry.
The Government have done a very detailed assessment of the steels that are not made and could not be made in the UK. Unfortunately, because of how the categorisations are set, some steel grades are swept up in a tariff measure along with other steels that are made in the UK. The quotas are designed to deal with that, so this is really about getting the quota level right, and that is very much part of the discussion we are having today—but I do understand the problem.
The trade arrangements for Northern Ireland will be the same for steel as they are for anything else. I have already committed to meeting businesses in Northern Ireland, and if the hon. and learned Member has businesses in his constituency that would like to join that meeting, from my perspective they would be most welcome to join it.
The hon. Member is right to bring this conversation back to the people involved in the industry. We have had a lot of discussion about steel and quotas and so on, but this is very much about people, and about the steel communities and communities, such as those in the Black Country, where there are lots of downstream users. The Government will of course publish the details as soon as they are available, but as I have said, that is very much dependent on our concurrent negotiations with the European Union.
I referred to exactly that point earlier, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman could share that with the company concerned. If it needs a steel that is not made or could not be made in the UK but has been swept up because it is part of a larger product categorisation, we need feedback about the level of quota in relation to the tonnage it would normally purchase. If it is involved in piling, I imagine the tonnage could be quite high. It would be very helpful if that information could be shared with me.
Perhaps I could address the point about the phrase “could be made”, which I think is at the nub of what the hon. Member is saying. The issue here is latent capacity in the UK. Some of that steel could be made at an existing steel plant that stretches its product range, but that is not the primary concern for me. This is about latent capacity, which is where we have steel capabilities in the UK that are not operating due to unfair competition from overseas. Fundamentally, we have to make a decision to correct a market failure to ensure that those businesses are investable for the private sector and are profitable, can operate, and can deliver those products to the market.
I want to reassure the hon. Member that I am concerned about the issue in Northern Ireland. In fact, just this morning I had a discussion about this with Short Brothers—I know he is a strong advocate of that business in this House—and I am giving careful consideration to the impact on Northern Ireland. Bills Presented Infants, Parents and Carers Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir Desmond Swayne presented a Bill to make provision about support for infants, parents and carers of infants, and prospective parents and carers, including provision relating to assessment of needs and to reporting requirements relating to such support; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 13). Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Lauren Edwards, supported by Kit Malthouse, Mr Peter Bedford, Josh Babarinde, Andrew George, Kim Leadbeater, Peter Prinsley, Dr Simon Opher, Jess Phillips, Dr Marie Tidball, Siân Berry and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards and protections, to request and be provided with assistance to end their own life; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 14). Heritage Public Houses Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mike Wood presented a Bill to require local authorities to maintain a register of heritage public houses in their area and to make provision in connection with the compilation and maintenance of such registers; to make provision relating to planning applications in respect of public houses on such a register; to make provision about the listing of heritage public houses; to make further provision relating to heritage public houses; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 15). Homes and Planning Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Andrew George, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Gideon Amos, Hannah Spencer, Mr Lee Dillon, Caroline Voaden, Ben Maguire, Steve Darling, Grahame Morris and Steff Aquarone, presented a Bill to make provision about the availability of social, affordable, and intermediate market homes; to make provision about the powers of local authorities and local planning authorities in relation to homes and planning; to make further provision in relation to homes and planning; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 16). First Cousins (Prohibited Relationships) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Dr Luke Evans, supported by Mr Richard Holden, Claire Coutinho and Mrs Kemi Badenoch, presented a Bill to prohibit the marriage of first cousins; to prohibit civil partnerships between first cousins; to prohibit sexual activity between first cousins; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 17). Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (No. 2) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Sir John Whittingdale, supported by Tom Tugendhat, Alex Sobel, Alicia Kearns, Damian Hinds, Gregory Stafford and Mims Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the use of litigation to suppress freedom of speech. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 18). Domestic Abuse Protection Orders (Amendment) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Jessica Toale presented a Bill to make provision about domestic abuse protection orders; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 19). Emergency and Life-saving Skills (Schools) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst, supported by John Cooper, Bradley Thomas, Sarah Bool, Joe Robertson, Alison Griffiths, Lincoln Jopp and Rebecca Smith, presented a Bill to require the teaching in schools of skills relating to emergency situations, including life-saving skills; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 20). Ceramics (Country of Origin Marking) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Gareth Snell, supported by Adam Jogee, Dame Karen Bradley, Leigh Ingham, Dave Robertson, David Williams and Dan Aldridge, presented a Bill to require the indication of country of origin for ceramic products; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 21). Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Lewis Cocking, on behalf of Lincoln Jopp, supported by David Davis, Alex Burghart, James Cartlidge, Nick Timothy, Mr Mark Francois, Jim Shannon, Ian Roome, John Cooper, Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst and Katie Lam, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the circumstances in which new criminal investigations, prosecutions, inquests or inquiries in respect of Troubles-related conduct carried out in Northern Ireland may be commenced; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 22). Fireworks Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Patricia Ferguson, supported by Sarah Owen, Kirsteen Sullivan, Alberto Costa, Douglas McAllister, Martin Rhodes, Dave Doogan, John Grady, Dr Zubir Ahmed, Susan Murray, Maureen Burke and Tracy Gilbert, presented a Bill to make provision about fireworks; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 23). Group-based Child Sexual Offences (Mandatory Life Sentences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Robert Jenrick, supported by Nigel Farage, Richard Tice, Lee Anderson, Sara Pochin, Danny Kruger, Andrew Rosindell and Suella Braverman, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of serious sexual crimes against children committed as part of a group; to require that whole life orders are the starting point for adult offenders; to require minimum terms for young adult and child offenders; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 24). Automated Online Software (Access and Transparency) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Damian Hinds, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Sir John Whittingdale, Pete Wishart, Liz Jarvis, Mr Bayo Alaba, Dame Caroline Dinenage, Simon Hoare, Jeff Smith and Vicky Foxcroft, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of operators of specified automated online software; to make provision about duties on those operators with regard to the functions of that software, including in relation to accessing online material published by persons other than the operator; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October, and to be printed (Bill 25). Relationships and Sex Education (Further Education Sector) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Alistair Strathern presented a Bill to make provision about relationships and sex education in the further education sector. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 26). Cancer (Reporting and Strategy) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Clive Jones, supported by Dr Scott Arthur, Helen Morgan, Mary Kelly Foy, Helen Maguire, Lee Pitcher, Charlie Maynard, Cameron Thomas, Mr Will Forster, Adam Jogee, Christine Jardine and Vikki Slade, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on performance in relation to specified targets and measures relating to cancer and to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of cancer; to require the Government to publish a strategy for improving cancer outcomes; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 27). Planning (Solar Power Generation) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Victoria Atkins presented a Bill to make provision about the granting of planning permission and development consent in respect of the building or installation of provision for solar power generation on agricultural land; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2027, and to be printed (Bill 28). Child-like Sexual Abuse Dolls (Offences) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Munira Wilson, supported by Alex Davies-Jones, Dame Karen Bradley, Max Wilkinson, Jess Phillips, Damian Hinds, Jess Brown-Fuller and Marie Goldman, presented a Bill to make certain acts involving child-like sexual abuse dolls an offence; to make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of such items; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 September, and to be printed (Bill 29). Coastal Communities (Health) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Steff Aquarone, supported by Edward Morello, Andrew George, Rachel Gilmour, Caroline Voaden and Richard Foord, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State, in exercising functions in relation to the health service, to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a strategy for improving the health and wellbeing of coastal communities and for reducing health inequalities between people in coastal and inland areas; to require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the implementation of that strategy; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 November, and to be printed (Bill 30). Hospice Funding Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Paul Foster presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals relating to the funding by integrated care boards of medicines and pharmacy services for patients in hospices; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 31). Work Experience (Schools) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) David Pinto-Duschinsky presented a Bill to make provision about work experience for pupils in secondary education. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 December, and to be printed (Bill 32).
I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on behalf of the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this debate on investment in Lancashire’s economy; there can be no doubt about her commitment to and passion for Lancashire. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr Foster), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who contributed so well to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said in her concluding remarks, she is a red rose, and I think that applies to all those who call the red rose county home. I want to address as many of the specific issues raised as possible, but I will talk about some of the positive investments in Lancashire that the Government are supporting and that have been enabled by Government policy. I am sure that by this stage, everyone in the House will know that I grew up in the north-east of England, on the other side of the Pennines—I hope that will not be held against me in this debate. We share something very much in common with Lancashire: our recent history, at a time of deindustrialisation in both our regions, which undermined the culture of the proud people of the north. I saw the effects of successive Governments who stepped back and allowed the slow and supposedly inexorable outsourcing of our industrial base to cheaper overseas markets. My hon. Friend talked about sectors such as advanced manufacturing and defence, and I know she will agree that that decline destroyed the landmarks, identity and culture of many industrial heartlands. What we have seen is that, as important as thriving services are, they work best when they are on top of a powerful industrial base of good, local jobs in manufacturing, engineering and key industries spread across the country.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Leyland Trucks. He will be aware of some of the procurement advice changes this Government have made, because we are keen to support British industry particularly in areas relating to national security. Thanks to Government support, Leyland Trucks has invested in its assembly lines and is now capable of producing 30 electric trucks per shift for sale both here in the UK and on international markets. It is also building a fully integrated zero-emission battery electric road sweeper. That is funded in part by our DRIVE35 programme, which represents the biggest investment in our car industry since the second world war. Leyland Trucks is vital to our automative sector and the Government’s industrial strategy. I could highlight some other great investments in Lancashire, including in aerospace, which we heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley in opening the debate. There are 6,000 jobs being supported at BAE Warton and Samlesbury, thanks to the Typhoon deal that the Government secured with Turkey last year and our wider Typhoon programme. Production and final assembly of each Turkish Typhoon fighter jet will take place at either Warton or Samlesbury as part of that deal. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is in Turkey as we speak, securing more trade opportunities for British industry. In energy, Lancashire is also playing a critical role in making the UK a clean energy superpower, thanks in no small part to the strength of the nuclear sector in the county. Lancashire is already home to world-leading expertise located at the Springfields and Heysham power stations and we are building on these strengths. This Government are investing in nuclear power, working with the private sector with partners such as LS Electric, to progress an energy storage project at Widow hill. This is helping to balance the grid and keep energy supply stable as more renewable power comes online. I know that there is appetite to do even more in Lancashire, especially with the RedCAT low carbon technology commercialisation accelerator. It has been raised with me by Members previously and I know it is doing good work in bringing cutting-edge low carbon products to market. I am meeting members of the East Lancashire chamber of commerce and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) soon to discuss this initiative further. Defence has of course been mentioned strongly, and we are all eagerly anticipating the publication of the defence investment plan, but in addition to the BAE sites I have mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will be aware that Lancashire is part of the north-west cyber cluster. She mentioned that specifically in her requests for further information and I undertake to write back to her in relation to the six or seven points she raised in detail at the start of the debate. The Ministry of Defence has made Blackpool and the Fylde College one of just five new defence technical colleges to bring employers across the defence sector together with young people from the area to ensure they can secure roles in engineering, in nuclear and in cyber-security. I know my hon. Friend shares my enthusiasm for creating opportunities for young people in defence, in energy and of course in advanced manufacturing. In addition to this support, the Department is working with the Office for Investment and local partners to deliver the “Lancashire Growth Plan”, which I would certainly recommend Members from the area become familiar with and carry around Parliament and push under the noses of Ministers, because, as we have heard, growth does not just happen in cities, and not all the places that are classed as not urban are also not rural. That is a strong feature not only of Lancashire but many places in the north-east, including the place that I call home. These are industrial areas centred around towns and it is good to see a strong pipeline of private sector investment coming forward across Lancashire. We have GVS Filter Technology’s recent £14 million low carbon manufacturing headquarters in Lancaster; a £100-million Eden Project in Morecambe, where Vinci has been appointed as the main contractor; and the Department for Business and Trade has thrown its support behind the recent investment announced by Budweiser, the official sponsor of the FIFA world cup 2026. I do not know whether I am allowed to point that out, but there we are. I believe my hon. Friend joined my ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who is responsible for employment rights and consumer protection, in celebrating Budweiser’s £7.8 million investment. There is another investment that I must mention. Mr Speaker is not here and is of course not able to speak on behalf of his own constituency, but Chorley is also benefiting from TVS Supply Chain Solutions, part of India’s TVS Group and a major UK employer. The group is planning to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in the UK, creating thousands more jobs, including in Chorley. I am aware that senior leaders met my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister during his recent India visit, which will help us secure nearly 7,000 new jobs from Indian investment in the UK.
I do agree with my hon. Friend. More than that, in the towns I have described and, in fact, in the places across the country where there is manufacturing, it is usually the most productive employment—the most productive economic activity. Of course that is good for the economy, but it is also good for jobs, because the most productive employers offer the higher wages, certainly higher than would be available if those factories were not there. My hon. Friend is quite right; aspects of industrial policy that can centre more manufacturing in towns will provide better employment and improve the standard of living of people who live in those areas. Boosting economies in those areas also needs to be linked to investment in infrastructure, which is why the northern growth strategy is important—it will ensure that the right transport and infrastructure is in place to attract that business investment. We are making upgrades to the west coast main line, equipping Lancashire combined county authority with £215 million of investment via the local transport grant to help councils deliver transport improvements, including bus lanes, cycleways and congestion-reducing measures for motorists. The Pride in Place programme, which has been mentioned, is providing £5.8 billion over 10 years to rejuvenate many places around the country, including six in Lancashire. We are targeting that investment in the places where it is most needed, breathing new life into high streets, parks and the public realm. Pride in Place funding is also supporting youth clubs, libraries, community grocers, cultural venues, health and wellbeing services, and other local initiatives that make a big difference to local areas, making them both better places to live and more attractive for private investment and the creation of jobs. Significant work is under way to attract greater private sector investment in Lancashire. After years of Governments under-investing in and, frankly, overlooking industrial communities such as those in the north-west, we have acted decisively to drive growth and regeneration across the county. The reforms we have set out in our industrial strategy are making it easier for Lancashire’s key industries to invest, grow, and succeed in what is a fiercely competitive global market. Our Office for Investment is working hard to bring in more private domestic and international investors to support our high-export, high-productivity firms and back the places where people live. We are ensuring that Lancashire is placed at the forefront of the Government’s growth mission, while ensuring that growth is seen and felt by local people in local communities. We are an active, interventionist Government, working to drive growth and investment in Lancashire, in the north-west and throughout the country. I am grateful for my hon Friend’s support in that effort, and I am committed to working with her and other Lancashire MPs to ensure we build on that momentum in the weeks and months to come. She said that she could wax lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is, and indeed it is wonderful. She also said that she wanted to coax more people to Lancashire, and I am sure that with this debate, she has done just that. Question put and agreed to.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of tackling abuse against people in customer-facing roles. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on customer service. I am proud to speak on this issue as a Co-operative party Member of Parliament. For many years, the Co-operative party has been at the forefront of tackling abuse against retail workers. It has worked closely on the issue with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I had hoped to see a member of the union in the Public Gallery, but they have not yet made it. The sector is encumbered by appalling levels of aggression, harassment and violence. The British Retail Consortium estimates that 1,600 such incidents take place across the UK every day; 118 of those involve physical violence, and 36 involve a weapon. Sadly, many employees have had an experience—ranging from being followed home at night to being knocked unconscious by a shopping basket—that made them fear for their life. Those facing such violence are ordinary hard-working people, often with families they are supporting at home. They deserve kindness, respect and the guarantee that they will return home safely from work. In the light of the overwhelming pressure, the Government have begun to take steps to address the issue. The response has been fronted by the introduction of a stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker, established by the Crime and Policing Act 2026. Those found guilty of the new offence can be sent to prison for up to six months, receive an unlimited fine and be barred from entering certain shops. Alongside that measure, the Government are rolling out facial recognition technology in public spaces and using tags to carefully track the movements of serial offenders. Those policies have been warmly welcomed by campaigners, who believe they will curb the rising violence and bring attention to retail crime. The voices of our 3 million retail workers are finally being heard, after too many years of being ignored. We cannot, however, expect those voices to fall silent any time soon. They now call on the Government to ensure that the measures introduced by the Crime and Policing Act are successful. Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain how success will be measured. What criteria will her Department use to evaluate the policy and determine whether it adequately protects retail workers? I am also keen to hear how the Minister interprets the BRC’s latest findings, which record a 20% decline in incidents of retail violence and abuse in the past year. To what extent does she believe that Government policy has contributed to that decline? Or does she believe it has come about due to heavy investment by retailers, improved staff training and closer collaboration with enforcement officials? In addition, the police must make effective use of the stand-alone offence in order to reprimand criminals and deter would-be perpetrators. That will require a stronger police presence on high streets and at retail parks and shopping centres, as well as the continuing prioritisation of retail crime. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how the Government are supporting police forces across the country to achieve that. What challenges may be posed as the policing framework evolves in the next two years?
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of my first jobs was working on a fruit and veg concession in Kwik Save. Kwik Save is no longer on the high street, but I still remember the scourge of shoplifting there, and the fear of approaching would-be shoplifters owing to the threat of violence. Very often these are low-level crimes. We write them off as nothing, but they can lead to larger problems in society. We need to crack down on that, and I hope the Government will give some indication on that today. I will try to develop that point as my speech goes on.
Absolutely. We need more funding and we need more police on the beat. It is vital that we treat these cases seriously. There is a serious underlying threat of violence if would-be shoplifters are approached. Shop and retail workers need the assurance that when they call the police, they will come out and take the incident—including any threat that came with it—seriously. I particularly understand that threat in rural areas. A shop owner might decide to close down, leading to the end of what might be the last shop for miles around. It is imperative that we do something about this, particularly in rural areas. Will the Minister meet representatives of USDAW to discuss how the Government can empower workers to speak out and report incidents of abuse? I want the measures introduced by the Government to successfully tackle retail crime. They have the potential to transform the lives not only of shop workers, but of every person in a customer-facing role. I say that because, should the Government’s legislation be successful, it must be implemented across all sectors. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on customer service, I work closely with the Institute of Customer Service. The team there have campaigned tirelessly against the abuse of all frontline workers through their “Service with Respect” campaign.
I will develop that argument further, but there is nothing more depressing than seeing a sign saying, “Abuse of staff will not be tolerated,” and we seem to see them everywhere now. That was not a sign we saw before. I think things have changed since lockdown. People seem angrier and more aggressive, but by shouting at people in these types of roles, particularly at GP surgeries, they are just stopping vital medical care getting to people who are ill and may need to be transferred to hospital. It has to stop.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need a co-ordinated response, including across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, this abuse does not stop at the border. It does not happen because someone is Scottish or English; it happens everywhere, and we should have a co-ordinated response from the four Governments of the United Kingdom to address it. He is absolutely right to bring that up. The “Service with Respect” campaign’s proposals would encompass 60% of the UK workforce, or around 18 million people. Of those, 42% say they experienced abuse from customers in 2025, up from 36% the previous year. Although these figures are alarming, they do not come as a shock to me. My first job was in a bookmaker’s. As a result, my first experience in a customer-facing role was marred by violence and constant abuse. I distinctly remember the undercurrent of aggression that ran through every shop that I worked in. That only intensified when I worked alone, and low-level verbal and physical harassment soon became the norm. That is not isolated to betting shops in south Wales. Across the UK, 90% of staff have witnessed violence or threats of violence by at least one customer, and 75% have been told that they or their colleagues will be assaulted after leaving work—abuse is not confined to the workplace. Before becoming an MP, I worked in a bank—for my sins—and banking is another sector in which employees routinely face abuse. They work directly with customers’ finances, often assisting them in times of stress and vulnerability. That can heighten tensions, increasing the likelihood that meetings will escalate into harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. Indeed, data collected from UK Finance members suggested that 10,503 incidents of abuse were directed at bank and building society staff in 2024. That is nearly double the figure in the previous year. Risks encountered by customer-facing banking staff are often overlooked in debates such as this. Given the sector’s important role at the heart of our communities, I would welcome an explanation from the Minister as to why the amendment sought by UK Finance to the Crime and Policing Bill was not taken forward by the Government. That amendment would have extended the offence of assaulting a retail worker to the banking sector—a timely development amid the growing number of protests organised against banking staff. Finally, I cannot ignore the scourge of harassment faced by public transport workers. In a survey of more than 600 RMT members, nearly two thirds had experienced customer violence in the past year. Of those, 70% agreed that abuse on public transport had increased on the year prior. For me, this is personal: both my mother and my stepfather worked on the valleys line and, sadly, abuse was part of their daily lives. In the light of the Crime and Policing Act, the RMT is campaigning with renewed vigour for the introduction of stronger legal protections for its members. At a station, a transport worker and a retail worker can be working in close proximity; nevertheless, if both are assaulted, they will be eligible for different levels of legal protection. That disparity is unacceptable. In addition, the Scottish Government have pledged to create a stand-alone offence of assaulting a public transport worker. When that comes into force, those working on a service in Scotland will be afforded significantly stronger protections than those assaulted south of the border—even on the same train service. I hope the Minister will meet representatives of the RMT to discuss how that problem can be alleviated. If the Department requires more evidence before doing so, I urge it to create a cross-industry working group composed of transport professionals, the unions and officials from the civil service. So far, I have highlighted the abuse faced by employees in just three sectors, but I could go on—to the call centre staff, the hospitality workers, the utility engineers or simply the caseworkers in our constituency offices—and we have yet to touch on the impacts of such abuse. The Institute of Customer Service reports that workplace abuse causes one third of employees to consider leaving their jobs and one quarter to take sick leave. When workers begin to disengage in that way, the services they provide suffer, the businesses they work for suffer and, ultimately, the communities they serve suffer. Incidents of abuse can have a debilitating effect on a workplace long after the perpetrators have fled and the immediate dangers have passed. In the most severe cases, staff are left with physical injuries, insomnia, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety or depression. Neither the human nor the economic costs can be fully explained, let alone calculated. Although sick leave has been priced at £1 billion a year, the costs of replacing those who leave their roles, training new staff and undertaking legal proceedings push that figure far higher.
My hon. Friend should not apologise for making an intervention like that. He is absolutely on the point there. We forget about the economic and the human costs of this. It is costing the economy billions of pounds, which could be saved if we nipped it in the bud right now. I hope the Minister will address that when she winds up the debate. If the Department deems the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker successful, will it extend that provision to encompass all other customer-facing roles? If an answer cannot be given currently, will she set out a timetable for a review process? We are on the brink of real, tangible change. Vital protections for people in customer-facing roles are within reach, thanks to the efforts of the Co-operative party, USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the RMT and the Institute of Customer Service, among others. Extending the stand-alone offence of assaulting a retail worker to all sectors would be transformative, vastly improving the lives of millions across the country, but that will be achieved only if this Labour Government continue to stick by the side of the workers and trade unions. These groups are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities. They must be protected with the full force of the law. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that she is level-headed and will come up with some good ideas. I thank her for listening.
Again, I pay tribute to the Co-operative party, USDAW, the British Retail Consortium, the Institute of Customer Service and all the others who have worked so tirelessly and diligently to keep this issue on the political radar. The work they are doing is really important. I also pay tribute to everybody who spoke in this debate, including the Front-Bench spokespeople for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam). It has been proved again that even though we may disagree about our methods, we all ultimately want the same thing: for people to go about their work in a safe manner and enjoy their jobs like they used to. I also pay tribute to the Minister. I knew I would end up saying this, but the Minister really gets this issue, and I was encouraged by her comments. In particular, I am pleased that she has agreed to meet USDAW—I know she has already met it and the RMT. I know that the Crime and Policing Act is relatively new, as it passed only this year, and we have to see how it works out. I genuinely hope that it is successful, and I think it will be, but for legislation to be successful, it has to be properly enforced. I hope that will continue to happen across the country with various police forces. I obviously understand that the Minister has to see how the law pans out, but I am pleased that she has committed to looking again, at some point in the future, at bank staff and transport workers, who are also being abused on a daily basis. I thank everybody who took part in this worthwhile debate. It has been harrowing in parts to listen to some of the examples. We have quoted an awful lot of statistics in this debate—we do in this place generally—but behind those statistics are families sending somebody out to work who will unfortunately be in the line of danger. I am hopeful that, with this legislation, we can bring about the change that is desperately needed. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of tackling abuse against people in customer-facing roles.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing the debate. As someone who used to represent the industry, I understand the challenges that our pubs have faced not just over the past two years, but over a decade of changing attitudes and behaviours that mean many of us do not go to the pub as often as we used to. I am sure that, were it not for our service in this place, many of us would be enjoying a pint or two while watching England this evening, benefiting from the extra licensing hours that the Government have allowed to celebrate the world cup. I will not be as cynical as others—or maybe I will be—by mentioning a variety of pubs in my constituency that residents should visit tonight. Whatever happens tonight, and whether they go to the Golden Cross or the Coach and Horses in Harvington, or the Old Bull or the Bulls Head in Inkberrow, I hope that they spend their money in the local pubs in our villages. In Inkberrow, Feckenham and Hanbury, the local is often the last community asset standing. It is the place where people gather, older residents find connection and the social fabric of our villages is woven. In my constituency, many of them have become temporary post offices. I thank the Minister for his engagement during the business rates process. I was one of the Labour Members who darkened his door with concerns and recommendations for change. It is not lost on me that those changes represented £400 million extra for pubs. I thank him for his honest engagement throughout the process, which all Back Benchers should welcome. I also welcome the 15% business rates discount and the frozen multiplier, which are worth nearly £1,650 for the average pub. However, the sector warns that deeper structural reliefs are needed, and that, without further change, 15,000 jobs could be lost over the next couple of years. That is the reality I hear from licensees across my constituency. I gently suggest some things that the Minister might want to consider for the future. First, the business rates methodology review must reflect the unique trading model of rural wet-led pubs, which is not the same as that of urban pubs. Secondly, we must expand draught relief—and go further where possible. Thirdly, we must strengthen protections for assets of community value, and make it easier for communities to take over vulnerable pubs through co-operative models. For anyone who is not aware, Pub is the Hub does incredible work and deserves more support. Our pubs are not just peripheral amenities; they are institutions. If we allow them to disappear, we lose not just businesses but the hearts of our communities. It is so hard to start a new business right now for a variety of reasons, including, as has been mentioned, changes in people’s behaviours and attitudes towards spending money or enjoying a drink. I fear that, if we lose some of the rural pubs in our communities, we will lose many other businesses that rely on them. I thank the Minister for his co-operation, support and engagement throughout the process, but there is a lot more work to do to keep those businesses in our constituencies safe.
My hon. Friend was a champion for mental health long before I came to this House, and I congratulate her on securing the debate. She makes a point about spending, and I read this morning that despite 28% of cases in the NHS being related to mental health, it receives only 13% of the funding. That is at the same time that parity of esteem has been a legal requirement for over a decade. If we are serious about parity of esteem between physical and mental health, the spending must follow the rhetoric.
5. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of increases in defence spending on Wales.
National security is the No. 1 priority of this UK Government, and businesses in Redditch are proud to support our armed forces. Does the Secretary of State agree with my assessment that, at this time of global uncertainty, it is more important than ever that parties across the House champion the value of our Union and our nations standing together against global threats?
I apologise for the intervention and congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has touched on a point that I was talking about with my colleagues from USDAW in Redditch, which is the number of members they have lost from the workforce who are now on benefits or receiving support. They were chased out of the workforce due to their experiences, because we are not protecting people in their places of work, which are often their places of home and community as well.
I fully support the need to buy British, but companies such as Springmasters, KM Products and Accurate Laser Cutting Ltd—all of which are based in Redditch—cannot source the grade and size of steel required for their machines entirely from the UK; in fact, most comes from the EU. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of my local businesses to hear their suggestions about how we can protect local businesses but also meet the good intention of this Government to support British steel?
My hon. Friend is giving a passionate articulation of the frustration felt by many of us outside non-metropolitan areas. We feel that frustration greatly in Redditch, where we are south of the West Midlands combined authority border. I find that difficult to explain to my students who want extra funding in education or to those who want transport links that do not get funding because we miss out on every partnership and every strategic housing fund. If we are really going to get the economy moving and growing, that has to happen in our towns—towns like Redditch—that led the industrial revolution many years before we had even heard of metro mayors.
6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support economic growth in Wales.
Monmouthshire’s high streets welcome the £1.5 million Pride in Place funding, especially Monmouth, after November’s devastating floods. I recently wrote to the landlord of 20 Monnow Street—more commonly known as the “pigeon-poop building”—as part of my campaign to fill empty shops. But we need deeds, not words. The commissions and the taskforce that Plaid says it is planning will not cut it, so will the Secretary of State make representations to the Welsh Government? They need to act on our high streets as soon as possible, not just establish quangos.
I thank the Minister for recently meeting me to discuss my two brilliant downstream steelmaking companies in Monmouthshire, CMF and STAPPERT. Can I ask him to look at their cases again? If he is meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—my constituency neighbour—at Llanwern, perhaps he could consult these two companies and hear exactly what their issues are.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. In March, the excellent work of Dudley trading standards officers was highlighted in a Channel 4 documentary in which officers uncovered links to organised crime and signs of child exploitation, including the illegal sale of vapes to children as young as 11. The trading standards team has been carrying out extensive enforcement activity against illegal shop operations, particularly those involved in illicit vaping sales. That work ultimately led to the closure of 31 illegal shops, including in Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton. Dudley council has since launched an internal audit, and it is reviewing evidence shared with child protection teams and examining whistleblowing reports from the last 10 years to ensure that nothing has been missed. It is vital that those responsible are held to account and, above all, make certain that strong safeguards are put in place to protect vulnerable children in future. I was a local councillor before becoming an MP and was always impressed by the proactive work of our trading standards and the local police. I have worked with them to secure closures of several local shops over the years and have even given evidence to strengthen cases. Despite those tireless efforts, they are working with one arm tied behind their backs. Closure orders only last for three to six months and then shops reopen with a different owner. Some shops have more than one location and transfer illicit stock across local authority boundaries to evade enforcement, which I have seen happen between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). All the while, trust and hope in our communities is eroded. I am really pleased that this Labour Government are taking action to support the work of local teams and restore pride in our towns and high streets. Recent national enforcement by HMRC strengthens cases against shop owners and adds to the arsenal for tackling this issue. Illegal activity has no place whatsoever on our high streets. It creates an uneven playing field for shops and services that follow the rules. We need to extend closure order periods, tackle phoenixing and hold landlords to account for who they let their units to. It also needs to be really easy for the public to report their concerns. We all hear from constituents who have suspicions about illegal shops in our towns and high streets, and we know that first-hand reporting always carries the most weight. In the past, concerns could be reported directly to our councils through their websites, but in some cases it has now been directed centrally through Citizens Advice.
My hon. Friend is right. I hear a lot from local shopkeepers that they are afraid to raise their concerns with the police for fear of being attacked. It is absolutely right to make it as easy as possible for the public, who are as frustrated as we are, to support this work. We are now seeing reports directed centrally through Citizens Advice, where there is no specific reporting mechanism for trading standards itself, which leaves people uncertain about where to direct their reports. I am hopeful that we will see an improvement in how we tackle illegal activity on our high streets and make our communities vibrant and welcoming once more.
May I add my voice to that of other Black Country Members? On behalf of Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton, I am grateful to the Minister and the Department for Business and Trade for their ongoing engagement with me and local businesses. It is much appreciated, but can I also add my voice to those calling for a review of quotas? In some places, those have been reduced by more than 80% on products not currently produced here. Equally, we have fabricated products being imported that are not subject to any tariffs, which could impact on local downstream supply chain industries.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and on his excellent speech. Our high streets are more than just places to shop. They are at the heart of our communities; they are places where people meet, local businesses grow and neighbourhoods come to life. That is why illicit activity on our high streets not only undermines the honest businesses that work hard to serve the community but makes people feel unsafe in their communities. They see illicit activity go unchecked and feel powerless.
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. People sometimes feel intimidated by those who congregate around shops, and that makes them feel unsafe. Southgate and Wood Green constituents have told me that, aside from the sale of counterfeit vapes and tobacco, they have witnessed drug dealing openly taking place outside cafés and other premises. They have witnessed phoenix shops—which open for a few weeks, close and then reopen under a different name—dodging tax and business rates and contributing nothing to the local area. It is clear that organised crime is behind that, as many hon. Members have said. Serious and organised crime is estimated to cost the UK Government at least £47 billion annually. Investing in the protection of our high streets should be at the top of our priorities. The recent Home Office and Treasury announcements are a good start, but we need a co-ordinated approach, with one Department taking the lead in solving this problem, which cuts across Departments. If we are to crack the problem, co-ordination and information-sharing at local government and national Government levels will be key. That is why I welcome the Government’s new national high street organised crime unit, which has been established to co-ordinate across Government, policing and enforcement agencies. That is, alongside the £30 million for combating high street criminality, a welcome step forward. However, to act as fast as possible, we must also give authorities more power to tackle crime head-on. As is the case in my constituency, trading standards teams are already stretched. We desperately need more investment in trading standards, including more trading standards officers. Specialist financial investigators are also urgently needed to address money laundering, and I am pleased that the Treasury has promised to invest in them. We must do more at the pace that this challenge demands. However, although the Government’s efforts to tackle illicit activity are welcome, enforcement alone cannot close an already widening gap. Criminal networks are often hidden behind front operators with no obvious criminal record, making it difficult for local authorities to identify risks before damage is done. Colleagues have already referred to the Bibob Act in the Netherlands, which focuses on prevention and tackling the issue before it can come to life on high streets. I would very much welcome powers like those in that Act. As we work to tackle the criminality on some of our high streets, we must ask how we can prevent it from taking root in the first place. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering giving greater powers to local authorities and trading standards officers to tackle illicit activity on our streets? What steps she is taking to ensure that there is greater co-ordination in Government and at local level? I welcome all the changes that the Government are making to protect our high streets from illicit activity, including the extension of closure order powers. However, more needs to be done to tackle this challenging issue. We must restore public confidence and more vibrant and thriving high streets. To do so, we need to use all the weapons at our disposal to cut out once and for all the cancer of illicit and criminal activity.
It is shocking that, in some hotspot areas, 50% of convenience stores or vape shops are linked to organised crime. My constituents in Derby South are really fed up with that, and so are legitimate business owners. Does my hon. Friend think it is time to crack down and shut down these dodgy shops once and for all?
We all support greater production here in the UK, but the details of these tariffs need more work. Black Country MPs, such as me and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes), have heard huge worries from our downstream industries, including stockholders such as Amari, fabricators such as Angle Ring, and trade associations such as the British Constructional Steelwork Association and the Cast Metals Federation. Will the Minister go away and review the details? We need protections for fabricated steel, like those Canada and the US have in place. Once again, we are seeing projects in receipt of massive public funding importing fabricated steel. We need a detailed look again at the categories and the quotas. We need proper consultation with UK Metals Council members, and we need to look at the detail again to ensure that it is right and that it supports a great future for manufacturing in the Black Country and elsewhere.