5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
To do that, we must reimagine the role of Government. The Government need to stop their preoccupation with driving people online. How wonderful it would be if the Government suddenly said, “You can no longer do this online. You must do it face to face.” Those personal interactions, with all their civilities and courtesies, make up the tapestry of civilised life.
Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. As Keats said, beauty is truth, truth beauty. That truth is about recognising that the aesthetic of a place informs people’s association with it. All my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) is asking is for design codes to have statutory force and not simply be guidance, which is not enough.
I will call Gregory Campbell to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge and of the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
I must point out that this is our second debate on this subject on the same day, in the same place and with the same Minister, whom I invite to respond. You will say something like what you said earlier, I guess.
Order. I should remind Members that they need to bob, though I see they already know that. I call Robbie Moore.
Order. Four Members are standing, so they have about five minutes each.
Just for the record, my first job was in Chiesmans, a department store that then existed in Lewisham, where I served in the china and glass department.
I call the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Rachel, could you allow a short time at the end for Josh to wind up and for me to put the Question?
Absolutely. You missed the cut there, Robbie. I call Josh Dean to wind up very briefly.
I strongly agree with the comments of the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), about the need for getting the culture right with accountability. When I was Secretary of State, we passed the duty of candour regulations. They were supposed to make it—well, they do make it—a criminal offence for trusts not to tell the truth to families when a tragedy has happened. Yet to this day, trust lawyers advise doctors, nurses and midwives not to be open about what has happened when there is the prospect of legal action further down the line. Does the Secretary of State—I know he is very committed to this—agree that we will clear up this anomaly in the Hillsborough law so that it is just not possible for trusts not to tell the truth and so that trust lawyers always advise their own doctors, nurses and midwives that they must tell families exactly what happened?
Is it not the reality that the plan the Defence Secretary has put forward barely scrapes into 2.7%? It is not 3%. It leaves us £9.3 billion short, every single year of the process. If he is not going to achieve 3% by 2030, how in heaven’s name will he ever achieve the NATO minimum by 2035? It is not going to happen in ’35. He will not get 3.5% out of this Budget, will he? Will he give us the dates?
It would appear that this defence investment plan is unaffordable, but the Public Accounts Committee will be examining that. Deep in the plan is an old accountant’s trick: a vast efficiency savings figure of £10.7 billion. Does the plan rely on that figure? If not, what is the incentive to make efficiency savings over the course of the plan?
T7. The Secretary of State knows how fond I am of him personally, and I want him to keep his job, so will he please his new boss—the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—virtually the entire legal establishment and the English people, whose only wish is to keep their 1,000-year-old right to trial by a jury of their peers when their liberty is at stake?
Many wonder whether aircraft carriers are going to go the way of the old battleships, uniquely vulnerable to drones that cost a tiny fraction of their cost. To protect aircraft carriers, we need destroyers and frigates. Moreover, in two world wars we relied completely on destroyers and frigates to protect our food supply, so will the Secretary of State say more about the replacement of our ageing frigate and destroyer fleet, particularly with regard to the Type 45 and Type 83 destroyers?
Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind as to whether it is right to abolish the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, which was specifically designed to provide for a duty of candour? Clinicians would be obliged to give evidence to HSSIP; they could not refuse, and there would be criminal penalties if they did. As we have already established, the duty of candour, as conceived in the Hillsborough law, does not work, and I suspect there will be no improvement unless HSSIP is allowed to carry out completely independent investigations that have proven that they can carry the confidence of the public, patients and clinicians. Will the Secretary of State keep an open mind about keeping HSSIP?
Can I return to the efficiency savings that are forecast to be made? There are to be savings of £10.7 billion—£7 billion to come from resource spending and £3.7 to come from capital. Apart from some very vague headings, there is no indication in this document of where that money is going to be saved. Can the Secretary of State issue a written statement as soon as possible to set out exactly how those savings will be made? Otherwise, I have to rather agree with the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier): we have all seen these accounting tricks before under previous Governments of both colours, and the savings are very rarely made. The Secretary of State will have to factor that into the negotiations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—whoever that may be—in the forthcoming spending round, and I take what he has said about the next spending round to be a very significant point.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This statutory instrument amends provisions within the Education and Inspections Act in relation to new schools. Let me start by acknowledging the one positive aspect of these regulations, which is to make it easier to create new pupil referral units. The previous Conservative Government supported PRUs and expanded provision of alternative education to children who need additional help. In particular, the alternative provision academies achieved better results, according to Ofsted, because they were allowed to innovate and take control of their curriculum. Unfortunately, this Government have not learned that lesson, either in relation to alternative education or traditional schooling. Regrettably, the focus of the statutory instrument is to crack down further on academies and the freedoms they enjoy. The Academies Act 2010 allowed more schools to benefit from academy freedoms, to innovate and to improve standards. Those rising standards are one of the proudest achievements of the previous Government. Research by the Education Policy Institute found that pupils attending the early sponsored academies achieved outcomes equivalent to roughly one GCSE grade higher in subjects, compared with similar pupils in predecessor schools. Academies are now educating millions of children across England, to their benefit. Although no system can guarantee success in every case, academy trusts are strongly represented among the highest-performing school groups in the country. Across the border in Wales, where the Conservative education revolution did not occur, standards have lagged behind. Welsh pupils have been disadvantaged compared with their English counterparts. Labour’s assault on academies is short-sighted and wrong. It speaks to its need for ever more control. The Conservatives know that giving academies freedom to innovate helps more children to get a decent education. That is why we will oppose the statutory instrument.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s failure to publish the impact assessment means that NHS authorities across the country do not know how much this deal will cost them? My constituents in Somerset cannot get a GP appointment or see an NHS dentist. That is far more important to them than this obscure deal.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to respond to this moving and, sadly, harrowing debate. I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this incredibly important debate, for his dedication to this cause and for his moving speech. I also acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—my good friend—who set out passionately why this debate is so important and why we are all here, even though we wish that we did not have to be. Jewish students face some of the worst antisemitic abuse in society and in universities. According to the Community Security Trust, there are over 9,000 Jewish students at universities across the UK, and they have faced a terrifying rise in antisemitism. In 2022-23, there were 53 university-related antisemitic incidents; that number rose to 272 in 2023-24—the highest total recorded for a single academic year. The Union of Jewish Students has published a harrowing report highlighting the fact that antisemitism is now effectively normalised on our campuses. It found that one in four students have seen behaviour that explicitly targets Jewish students for their religion. More broadly, the report demonstrates that universities are failing to confront the open glorification of terrorism. Nearly half of students have heard chants glorifying proscribed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The research also shows that “student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews”, even justifying the sickening terrorist attack in Bondi Beach last year. As well as the terrible glorification of violence, and the sense that antisemitism is normal because it always goes unpunished, antisemitic protests also disrupt students’ learning. Students who have witnessed Israel-Palestine protests at university feel that it still goes unaddressed, and four in 10 students have seen Jewish students being harassed. Britain has a proud history of tolerance but we cannot be complacent in our fight to protect our fundamental values of decency, tolerance and support for each other. I thank hon. Members from all parties for speaking up in solidarity with British Jewish students. However, those freedoms, which are fundamental to our democracy, and proud traditions are under ever-increasing threat. Society is becoming more fractured, driven by divisive rhetoric online and offline that drives populism and pushes more people towards the extreme. The fact that our society is more divided is having a real impact on the everyday lives of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in the UK. The Community Security Trust estimates that there were over 300 antisemitic incidents per month in 2025—that is double the number in the year preceding the war in the middle east. Student testimony collected by organisations such as the CST, the Union of Jewish Students and the Pinsker Centre demonstrates the hostile environment faced by Jewish students on campus since October 2023. Although some have already been shared, let me share a few of those comments. In a focus group run by the Pinsker Centre, one student said: “Some people suddenly radicalised…after October 7th and now don’t speak to me. They have blocked me on social media, ignore me or have explicitly told me that I am complicit in genocide.” In summer 2024, a Jewish society committee member in Bristol approached a pro-Palestinian encampment to have a civil conversation. That night he was recognised, physically attacked and assaulted in a nightclub by individuals who had heard him earlier in the day. His shirt was ripped and his back was covered in scratches and cuts. Too often, we hear about Jewish students being chased, attacked and abused because they are wearing kippot, or skullcaps. As we heard earlier, a Royal Holloway student—Evaldas, whom I spoke to earlier today—received calls in which the caller read out his home address, warned that they were coming to get him and made an explicit threat to blow up the Jewish society. He told me that he got those calls 10 times a day, and that, at one point, because his address was publicised, bloody period pads were put outside his door. As we heard earlier, a professor at Bangor University physically attacked a student while calling him a “baby killer”—a medieval antisemitic trope. I spoke today to Evelyn from University College London, who told me that, at an antisemitism stall, she was approached and called an “effing white supremacist bitch”. I paraphrase, because the abuse went on and on. She had a recording, but last week she found out that no action was being taken. I hear repeatedly about how many members of the faculty at UCL are members of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which is clearly helping to exacerbate the situation. I spoke to Ben from the London School of Economics, who told me about the launch of a book titled “Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters”. There was a protest outside the book launch, and a counter-protest to the protest. He eloquently said to me, “If you are counter-protesting at a protest against a proscribed terrorist organisation, what does that make you?” As we heard earlier, a King’s College London student had to write a 1,000-word essay explaining why it was wrong to display an Israeli flag on campus. Imagine if that had been a Palestinian flag. Would the result have been the same? The list goes on and on. Something has gone horribly wrong. It is clear that a permissive culture of antisemitism and abuse has been allowed to fester. Antisemitism has been covered up as activism and protest. Hate is being legitimised, and British Jews are left isolated and living in fear. Our Jewish communities need us. In this moment, we cannot falter. I am pleased that the Government have announced some new steps to ensure that universities publish the scale of antisemitism on campuses—that is a welcome step forward—but we need further clarity on what exactly the Government will do if universities continue to fail to tackle antisemitism, examples of which I have listed. Saying, “We will set out next steps in due course” is not enough. Our Jewish community need to know today what the Government intend to do to clamp down on this. Will the Minister address that? The shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has said that universities that fail to clamp down on antisemitism should have their funding stripped to ensure that there are real and serious consequences for that failure. I therefore ask the Minister to identify the steps that the Government will take to punish universities that have allowed antisemitism to become normalised. Too many students tell me that the complaints system is insufficient. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which they have to go through, has no meaningful sanctions. We need a complaints system that works for students. I encourage the Minister to look into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) wrote to him about it, but he is yet to receive a reply. Will the Minister address that? Is the Minister working with the Office for Students to better tackle antisemitism? I recognise that an independent investigation into antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities is due by the autumn, but will the Minister update the House on specific timetabling, as other Members have asked him to? The evidence we have heard today shows how important it is to tackle antisemitism urgently. The importance of this debate cannot be overstated. It goes above party politics, so I offer my sincerest support to the Minister in helping the Government to tackle extremism of all kinds in our universities. I say to British Jews: His Majesty’s Opposition will never shy away from standing up for you, and we will do so without fear, knowing that we are standing up for what is right. There are too many platitudes, too many never agains, and yet nothing changes. When I meet British Jews, as I did yesterday, I too often see fear and anxiety in their eyes. I too often hear that they are not sure if this country—their country—is safe for them. To hear about raging antisemitism on our university campuses, which should be a safe place for all, is a stain on our society. A future Conservative Government would ensure that universities do not allow antisemitism to fester. Those that do not comply would face the toughest of sanctions. Hate preachers who come to this country to spread hate would, under the Conservatives, be deported. Where the law is broken, we would empower the police to enforce it to its fullest extent. To British Jews, let me say this: your fight is our fight, you are of us and we are of you, and we will not fail you in this endeavour.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate. Our high streets are facing huge challenges at the moment. Nationally, fiscal pressures have been put on them—employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage, the business rates increase—and the Employment Rights Act 2025 is making it even more challenging for many of our high street businesses to take on young people. Then, of course, we have the tourism tax, or holiday tax, coming down the line.
Then why on earth legislate and introduce further regulations that impose much more of a burden on our high street businesses? That is exactly what businesses are telling me, that this legislation is making it more costly to do business. The tourism tax will tax businesses in Ilkley and Haworth, imposing much more of a burden on them for less money to be spent locally. What does that do? It gives our Mayor of West Yorkshire more power to use my area as a cash cow for money to be spent in other areas across West Yorkshire, rather than investing it in my constituency. Locally, Bradford council has imposed car parking charges across the whole of my district, including for on-street parking, which is making it much less attractive for people to come and spend money in Ilkley. A petition signed by 4,000 residents was submitted to Bradford council, but the council went ahead regardless. It costs £3,000 to £10,000 to install a parking machine. In the village of Addingham, which has only 18 parking spaces, it will take decades before the council starts making any money. My simple request to the Minister—and indeed to Bradford council, which I hope is listening—is to remove those parking charges, take away the cost to visitors and residents who want to spend their money locally, and back our businesses. We are fed up with being used as a cash cow for the rest of Bradford to benefit at our expense.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I commend the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) for securing this important debate, and congratulate him on his speech—I thought he made some excellent points. Many young people are entering adulthood without the knowledge, confidence and access to the financial services that they need to build secure futures. Some 70% of adults believe that better financial education in their younger years would have improved their ability to manage their finances, and two thirds of young people believe that the lack of financial education has played a role in their amassing the debts they hold. I wish to talk through a few issues that have been raised with me, particularly regarding access to apprenticeships and the challenges that those in our rural economy face with increased costs. I recently visited Keighley college in my constituency, where I met the principal Kevin O’Hare. Kevin highlighted to me a key issue that is putting young people undertaking apprenticeships at a financial disadvantage compared with those who decide to stay in full-time education, if they are from financially deprived backgrounds. Currently, young people who remain in full-time education after the age of 16 continue to be treated as dependent children for the purpose of a range of household benefits. In contrast, young people who enter an apprenticeship are generally treated as employees, which can lead to a loss of income-related support linked to household benefits. For some low-income families, the resulting loss of benefits can exceed the apprentice’s initial earnings, meaning that a household might be financially worse off when a young person chooses an apprenticeship, compared with had they remained in full-time education. I am keen to understand what conversations the Minister is having with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education on that classification, because that appears to run counter to the Government’s objective of promoting apprenticeships as a prestigious pathway that is equal to academic study. It may disproportionately affect participation among young people from disadvantaged communities. I have seen that in the casework coming into my office. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of household benefit losses on participation in apprenticeships among 16 to 18-year-olds? If the Minister cannot answer that in her speech, I would be grateful if she would write to me. The second issue that I want to raise follows a meeting that I had this weekend with Silsden and Skipton young farmers club, whose members were keen to raise the cost of car insurance. Young people in rural areas face a crisis of skyrocketing insurance premiums, which makes it difficult for them to get around. Limited public transport makes owning a car essential, but they face huge costs. They cannot take up job opportunities and education if they are priced out of the market. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford spoke about the mental health implications when young people feel the strain of debt, whether from going through education or simply because of the cost of living in rural areas. The key underlying point is the Government’s failure to grow new opportunities for young people. Unemployment has risen to 5% and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. In January to March 2026, an additional 110,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were unemployed than in the same period in 2025. Young people at Keighley college who wish to pursue opportunities through apprenticeships face being worse off. That is further exacerbated by the rise in employers’ national insurance and the minimum wage, and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created challenges. Fiscal inclusion is about education and, crucially, about fostering an economy that rewards hard-working and ambitious young people, rather than punishing them. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on those points.
I welcome the Minister to her place. On the issue of mental health, many young people in my constituency raise the challenge of getting into work. With youth unemployment now at record levels, does she realise that one of the best ways of tackling mental health issues is to enable people to get into the job market in the first place, so that they do not have the additional pressure and anxiety of not being able to earn funds? Does she not recognise that things like employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and minimum wage increases have exacerbated the unemployment figures? Will she work with industry to address the concerns that are being raised with me and, I am sure, with her in her new role?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. You have launched an unfortunate trend of people fessing up to their first jobs; however, it gives me the opportunity to make a point about the context in which we are debating the financial inclusion of young people. My first job—probably illegally, at the age of about 10—was a Saturday job helping out a milkman on the milk round. I then had a Christmas holiday job helping the Royal Mail to deliver Christmas letters, and a summer job packing electric parts, all of which I did in Bedford. The key point, which relates to financial inclusion, is that a lot of what this Government are doing is turning employers away from being able to offer those job opportunities to young people. I really hope that they will rethink that, because as we have heard, the number of young people out of employment is going up quite considerably. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this debate. I also thank him for the tone and the insights with which he opened it, which all subsequent Members reinforced, and would like to refer to some of the points made. The first was from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who recommended more action to support small sum lending and spoke about the beneficial effects that that can have on credit track records; I will reinforce that point a little later in some questions to the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised a point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about from a different angle, which is that young people make quite an important decision that affects their financial wellbeing: university versus apprenticeships. At the moment, it seems that both paths lead to potentially detrimental effects on young people’s financial wellbeing. They spoke about the decision to take out a student loan at a young age, and whether people get the right advice about what that might mean for their long-term financial wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made a really interesting point about the potential disparity in how young people who decide to take an apprenticeship are treated in terms of access to financial resources, versus those in full-time employment, so perhaps the Minister can also say something about that. The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) used her experience on the APPG for debt and financial inclusion to talk about the excellent work undertaken by Young Enterprise to improve young people’s understanding of money. That is quite timely, because My Money Week, which Young Enterprise started to try to teach young people in schools about finance and expand their knowledge, has just concluded. I echo the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire in saying that it would be good to extend that level of involvement beyond the age of 16 to young people more generally. The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) used his experience to echo a point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) about how young people are turning to social media as their source of understanding. Turning to social media for anything is usually not good for one, which is one of the reasons why the Government have come around to banning young people from social media. When it comes to getting advice about finances, young people are already at risk through a lack of knowledge and understanding. Social media is a very dangerous source of information that can undermine what they might learn from their parents or schools. I also echo the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello): familiarity with technology is not the same as access to financial services, although there is an opportunity for us to do something with financial technologies. Financial inclusion for young people is a passion shared between my party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. This is one of the areas where we are all looking to make progress. Under the last Conservative Government, we made financial education for 11 to 16-year-olds compulsory in the curriculum. I think the evidence shows—the Minister may confirm this—that we were not getting all schools doing what they should be doing, or at least that the results were not as we would have wished. However, it was the right step and the Government are moving now to make that compulsory in primary schools. That has to be a positive step. The last Government also made progress in improving student attainment in mathematics. In the PISA—programme for international student assessment—ratings for mathematics in 2009, England, as education is a devolved matter, was ranked 27th; by 2023, it was ranked 11th. That is good progress and is part of ensuring that young people understand numbers and can therefore get to grips with things. In the Government review by Professor Becky Francis, she commented on life skills and talked about the importance of young people learning about budgeting, interest, mortgages, pensions and financial planning. One thing that young people have to their advantage—the hon. Member for York Outer also mentioned this point—is the beauty of compounding interest. If they get the right start at a young age and are able to put some money aside, by the time they get to my age—perhaps even to your youthful age, Sir John—people will find it remarkable how compounding interest has worked on the savings that they have put aside. On the other hand, if they fall into debt, compounding interest can drive them the other way and into a much worse situation. It is absolutely crucial that we teach people the power of compounding, both positive and negative. Let me move on to my questions. As I did not have a chance to advise the Minister of my questions in advance, I would be happy to receive a reply in writing afterwards. First, ironically, I want to ask about cryptocurrencies. What assessment have the Government done of the potential for cryptocurrencies to promote financial inclusion? I am sceptical, but there may be potential benefits as well as risks; cryptocurrencies can provide an easier way in than financial institutions and have lower transaction costs. I am interested in the Government’s view. Secondly, I echo the point that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made about microfinance. What assessment have the Government made of the use of microfinance platforms targeted at young people, to enable them to take the first steps in building up a credit record or potentially being small-scale entrepreneurs—another great thing that young people could do? Thirdly, what is the Government’s view of the merits of leapfrogging traditional financial systems in favour of educating young people on emerging fintech platforms? Is that something that might raise young people’s engagement with financial education, and that might ultimately be in their best interests? I have a small point on “know your customer” rules—I am not too familiar with this point, but the Minister may have a view. Is the Minister satisfied that the way the “know your customer” rules currently work is effective for maximising young people’s access to basic financing and banking facilities? Finally, I am sure that the Minister and I agree on the need to ensure that schools are teaching financial inclusion at both primary and secondary level. How satisfied is she that schools are complying with the compulsory rules on financial education? What can we do collectively, as constituency Members of Parliament, to ensure that schools are delivering the quality of financial inclusion and financial education that we would all like to see?
15. How many biological male prisoners are held in the general women’s estate.
We have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that the Supreme Court has clarified the meaning of sex in the Equality Act 2010 and that Scotland has taken the relevant steps. The Minister responded to my hon. Friend with a fairly vague answer about what needs to happen in England. We know that there are women who are not biological females in the women’s estate in England and Wales. When will women get the same protections as in Scotland?
I have asked before about the future of the amphibious fleet and the replacements for HMS Bulwark and Albion, and Ministers reassured me that the multi-role strike ships were forthcoming and that the Government would recapitalise the Royal Navy’s amphibious fleet, with these new vessels ready to replace existing RFAs by 2033. The DIP implies that they are no longer being pursued. Is that the case? If so, does this change in plan mean delayed delivery and a capability gap for our amphibious forces?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the invaluable work of Opportunity Bromley and Your Bromley in my constituency to support big and small local businesses. I particularly want to single out Your Bromley, which works tirelessly to make sure that Bromley’s high street is an attractive and enjoyable place to visit and shop. In just the past week it held its Floral Fest, which transformed Bromley high street with colourful planter displays inspired by this year’s theme, “Growing Together”. I look forward to continuing to work with them to support the high street in the weeks and months ahead. Bromley and Biggin Hill needs its high streets to thrive. Some 21.5% of my constituents are employed in the hospitality, retail and leisure industries, but our high streets, like many across the country, have suffered under this Government’s constant attacks. The business rates hike alone, which was forced on local high streets by the Treasury, has faced some high streets with average rateable value increases of up to 82%, meaning thousands of pounds in extra costs. The Conservatives have a real plan to back our high streets, starting with the introduction of a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sector in England. That relief would benefit 250,000 businesses, including many in my constituency, and deliver substantial savings that could be reinvested in better premises, more staff and lower prices, as well as lifting thousands out of business rates altogether. We need our high streets. They are the centres of our communities, but if the Government do not see the pain that they are inflicting on businesses up and down the country, they will ensure the death of the high street. I will always stand up for the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy in Bromley and Biggin Hill.
The hon. Member is making an incredibly important speech. As someone who has visited the site of the Nova music festival, I have sensed some of the horrific slaughter and how awful that must be for those generations who are living with it. Referring to what the lecturer said, what powers should universities have to discipline members of staff who make such outrageous statements?
Sorry if this is slightly parochial: I welcome the release of spectrum, but what guidance will be given to Ofcom to help with the roll-out in semi-rural areas such as Biggin Hill in my constituency?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I welcome the new Minister to her place; I know that she has a background in these issues, and I look forward to working with her in the weeks, months or years ahead. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. He is a great champion for his community. This issue is close to his heart, and given his previous career in local government he is very knowledgeable about it. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. My hon. Friend mentioned a range of topics, which shows how much he is involved in his constituency and community, ranging from flaws in the banking hub criteria to the aesthetics of our high streets. I know that that comes from his time as leader of a local authority. I am also his Whip; after this morning, he can be guaranteed a good mention in dispatches later. We have heard some entertaining and knowledgeable speeches from my colleagues. My hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) have shown their in-depth knowledge of the challenges in their constituencies. Traditionally, high streets have been seen as indicators of the health of our economy, with the British Retail Consortium calculating that retail generates nearly £500 billion in annual sales and nearly 3 million jobs. According to the Office for National Statistics, around 4.4 million people work in businesses located on British high streets, which represents roughly 14% of all employment in the UK. The contribution of the sector to the UK economy is vital to any Government seeking economic growth, especially regionally driven growth, which I have reason to believe the incoming Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), is enthusiastic about. This growth will be much better able to sustain communities and help them thrive. It will empower local people, business owners and decision makers to improve the areas they know and love better than any centrally planned project ever could. As I have said in previous debates, however, the high street is more than a place where cash, services and goods change hands. It is at the heart of our communities—a place where people can come together to catch up over a coffee or a beer, have a natter in the nail bar or have a quiet read in the local bookshop. The value of our high streets cannot be quantified by simple sums of money, or by the business rates or council tax that they generate for the Treasury and local government. They are so much more than that. As has been outlined this morning, however, there is a sad story of decline on our high streets. Many factors explain that, and colleagues from across the House have touched on many of those, including the rise of online shopping, cost of living pressures, economic stagnation, high taxes on businesses, planning issues, poor local transport links and stretched public services. There are many causes of the problem, and many people lose out from dying high streets. Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the impact on young people. Retail has always been one of the UK’s great entry-level employers. It has given generations of young people their first job, taught customer services skills, teamwork and responsibility, and provided a pathway into management and business ownership. As Members will be aware following the publication of Alan Milburn’s report, youth unemployment stands at a staggering 16.2%—an increase of almost two percentage points on last year; at the same time, youth employment has fallen. More than 3 million 16 to 24-year-olds across the country are unemployed and economically inactive. We should ask ourselves a simple question: how many of those young people have been pushed out of work, or denied work in the first place, by the continuing decline of our high streets? Increases to the minimum wage, the surging cost of employer national insurance contributions and council tax hikes are just a few of the burdens heaped on to businesses, which have been pushed to the wire. In 2024 alone, more than 13,000 high street stores closed, and over the last two years the retail sector has lost almost 250,000 jobs. Every shop that closes represents not just another empty unit but another lost opportunity for someone hoping to take their first step into employment. If we genuinely care about tackling economic inactivity, we cannot ignore what is happening in our town centres and high streets. The picture is no better for Britain’s pubs. At this point, I had better declare an interest: I like being in pubs quite a lot. Changes to employer national insurance contributions have added around £7,200 a year to the wage bill of the average pub, which employs eight people. Layer on top of that business rate reforms, which were presented as a lifeline but for many businesses have proved to be anything but, and it becomes easy to understand why so many publicans are questioning whether they can continue. The consequences are stark: across Britain, two pubs close every day. At the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor promised to “permanently lower” business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, telling Parliament that this would help to level the playing field for our high streets. That ambition was welcome, but when the detail emerged many businesses concluded that the reforms would do the opposite. Rather than providing certainty, the changes have raised serious concerns that many larger retailers and hospitality businesses—the so-called anchor tenants that attract shoppers to our town centres—could face significantly higher costs. Those businesses generate footfall for everyone else. When a department store, a supermarket, a major retailer or a large hospitality venue closes, it is not just the business itself that suffers; small independent retailers, cafés and local shops lose passing trade.
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. That is something that this Labour Government have never got to grips with. Businesses already operating on tight margins face £40 billion of tax rises, including substantial increases in national insurance contributions, which will place further strain on them. I am delighted that colleagues on the Opposition Benches mentioned the Leader of the Opposition’s pledge to abolish business rates for most high street businesses. Alongside the economic challenges facing our high streets, we must also confront an uncomfortable truth, which many Members have mentioned: our constituents are increasingly concerned that some high street premises are being used not as genuine businesses but as vehicles for tax evasion, money laundering and organised crime. Those concerns are frequently raised in relation to certain cash-intensive businesses, including some barber shops, nail salons, mini-marts and vape shops. The overwhelming majority of those businesses are of course honest, hard-working enterprises that serve their communities and deserve our support, but the ones that are not undermine legitimate traders, distort competition and damage public confidence in our town centres.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. As I will come to, we welcome the Government’s early actions to tackle those businesses, but we think they could do more, and we offer our support in that. The Government introduced the economic crime levy, which we support, ensuring that those operating within the regulated financial sector contribute towards tackling money laundering and wider economic crime. It reflected the principle that protecting the integrity of our economy is a shared responsibility. However, there is clearly more to do. Without properly resourced investigations, effective intelligence sharing and robust action by enforcement agencies, there is a risk that the powers will exist only on paper. Trading standards, local authorities, HM Revenue and Customs, the police, immigration enforcement and the National Crime Agency all have a crucial role to play, but they need the resources and capacity to act. Evidence from trading standards professionals is particularly striking: 96% had encountered serious organised crime groups in their work. My time is fast approaching. I hope there is cross-party agreement on how we can tackle such businesses on our high streets, but there is more work to do. The Conservative party has put forward a platform to enable our high streets to thrive. This Government’s economic policies have damaged them. Maybe that will change when we have our new Prime Minister, but I sincerely doubt it.
I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport that forms the basis of today’s debate. I also thank everybody for their contributions today. This important report has highlighted the concerning reality that England’s community and school sport system is not currently delivering either the opportunities that people want or the benefits that we know sport can provide. All too often, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the sectors it oversees are dismissed as “nice to haves” or a bit fluffy, when in fact they are pivotal—indeed, essential—to our economy and society. DCMS sectors—sport, culture, tourism, film, TV, music, heritage, civil society and much more—enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling, while supporting over 5 million jobs in the UK and generating well over £220DCMS’s total expenditure fell 3.3% from 2023-24. The Government have chosen to abolish the National Citizen Service, to undermine horseracing and legitimate gambling, and to cut spending on tourism promotion, on business events, on listed places of worship and even on school sport, while implementing policies that are loading up costs on DCMS sectors, especially through tax rises. The business rates and national insurance rises are decimating DCMS sectors, depriving tens of thousands of young people of their first job opportunity and causing unemployment. Of the nearly 200,000 job losses since Labour came to power, over half were in tourism and hospitality and many of them involved young people. I respect the Minister, and have a lot of time for her, and many of those things were not her Department’s decisions, and that must be intensely frustrating. We all understand the benefits of an active population. When children are active from an early age, they develop confidence, resilience and social skills, and are more likely to enjoy better mental health, improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. If we fail to give every child the opportunity to be active, we risk storing up significant challenges for the future, from rising obesity and poorer mental health to greater pressure on our NHS. Allowing even more development on sports fields and playgrounds is clearly not going to help. The evidence is clear that there is strong public demand for sport provision, but as the report highlights, fragmented policy, inadequate investment and poor cross-Government co-ordination are preventing sport from delivering its full potential—whether improving health outcomes, supporting children’s development, strengthening communities or contributing to economic growth. There is also a gender dimension to this issue, as the Chair of the Select Committee outlined and as a recent report by Sky demonstrated. Investment in sport delivers some of the clearest returns of any area of public spending: Sport England estimates that every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 in social and economic value. The Government announced in January that they were investing £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the country as part of a £400 million boost for grassroots sport facilities by 2030. However, the £400 million figure is the same amount that we announced when we were in government, so thanks to inflation, it is a real-terms cut. There is also little detail on who will receive the money and when. Many sports governing bodies, including those for cricket, swimming and tennis, say that they have plenty of projects that are ready to go, but without clarity on funding, they cannot pull the trigger on key projects across the country. I have particular concerns about school sport, where there has clearly been a bunfight between the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and DCMS about funding. The Government announced £1 billion for school sport over the next three years, but the devil is in the detail. The Department for Education announced that the £320 million annual PE and sport premium for primary schools will be scrapped in favour of a new partnership network. Let us be clear: that is a cut. In fact, it leaves schools around 22% less well off in terms of annual funding than the current scheme. As the report outlined, we need structural reform, sustained investment, clear accountability and a joined-up national strategy. The Government have committed to publishing a national plan for physical activity later this year, and we look forward to scrutinising it. Sport and physical activity cannot solve every challenge facing young people, but they can be one of the most powerful tools for improving health, building confidence, developing skills and strengthening communities. Investment matters—of course it does—but we also need a long-term plan and structural reform. The Committee has provided Ministers with a road map; the challenge is whether the Government have the ambition to follow it.
The Justice Secretary and his ministerial team say that the attack on jury trials is needed to deal with the backlog in the courts. When the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) takes over and scraps the policy on jury trials, does the Minister predict that court backlogs will get worse?
I listened carefully but do not think the Minister answered my question—[Interruption.] We will see, won’t we? I am replying to the Justice Secretary’s comment from a sedentary position. I think the Minister has just made it very difficult for herself to stay in the Ministry of Justice when the right hon. Member for Makerfield takes over. The Government are continuing to say that the attack on jury trials is vital and there is no alternative, but we know that is not what the next leader of the Labour party thinks. He has made it clear that he is going to scrap the policy, so will the Minister spell out what this means? She is saying that the right hon. Member for Makerfield is wrong, isn’t she?
The Government referred the sentences of the teenage gang rapists who attacked two schoolgirls to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient, but the Government also say that they want to increase the age of criminal responsibility, and the Bar Council has said that age should be 14. That is one year older than the age of one of those rapists—proof that young criminals can commit terrible crimes. Will the Justice Secretary rule out increasing the age of criminal responsibility to 14?
Secretary of State, it is good form to let the Speaker’s Office know if one is going to speak for more than the allocated time. I will now have to give extra time to the other Front Benchers as well. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Order. You mean “the hon. Member”, not “you”—I do not need to go anywhere. I ask the hon. Member please to wrap up as soon as he can, because we have many speeches to get in.
I will give Front Benchers a heads-up: we are not going to have a huge amount of time, so please edit your speeches accordingly.