Westminster Hall

Wednesday 17 June 2026

[Peter Dowd in the Chair]

We have 10 or 12 people, including the Minister and Opposition spokespersons, wishing to speak. There are lots of people here, and I am sure there will be lots of interventions. I will therefore impose a four minute limit on speeches, but that will have to be reduced if we have too many interventions. I have fired the starting gun.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of tackling illicit activity in high street shops.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Before I start, I want to put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), who have been leading the dodgy shops campaign in Parliament. I am pleased to see that there are 50 MPs working to support this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes could not make it here today, but I will raise some of the issues that she asked me to raise.

High streets are at the centre of our communities. When our constituents look at them, they judge how our towns feel and how they feel about our towns. In Halesowen constituency, people want to see our high streets succeed. We have many independent and successful shops such as Bella’s Beautiful Things in Halesowen, Betty Stitchkit in Quarry Bank, and Cradley Heath DIY in Cradley Heath. We also have fantastic community groups that work hard to make our towns beautiful, such as Halesowen in Bloom and Cradley Heath and Old Hill in Bloom, whose volunteers do fantastic work.

But the truth is that, as the challenges to retail have increased, old established shops are closing and new shops are popping up in their place: vape shops, mini markets and barbers. Although the majority of those shops are perfectly legitimate, there is increasing evidence that what the public suspect is true: many are involved in money laundering, counterfeit goods and other criminality. In fact, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, whose members are on high streets every day, tells me that in some areas up to half of mini markets and vape shops have links to organised crime.

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?

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is completely right that we need to tackle those dodgy shops. I am pleased that the Government have made a range of announcements on that, but I will make further suggestions for where we might go even further.

We see dodgy shops in Derby, and we do not just have to take the word of the CTSI. My constituents saw with their own eyes on the BBC in April that there was drug dealing in the open on Cradley Heath High Street.

My hon. Friend is right that dodgy shops and mini marts are often a front for organised crime, particularly drug dealing, but also for the sexual and criminal exploitation of children, which we sadly know all too much about in Rochdale. I am delighted that the Government have listened to experts such as Rochdale trading standards on extending closure orders from three months to a year, and that they are looking closely at doing that. But there is also a big issue in my local shops of drug paraphernalia being sold next to sweets, and of drugs in resealable bags designed to look exactly like sweet wrappers. Does he agree that the Government should look at the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so that trading standards can intervene on this?

I am glad my hon. Friend raised that issue. He shared with me some photographs of paraphernalia that looks just like a packet of Skittles or a packet of sweets. It is completely unacceptable that we allow businesses to market these things, which only encourage illegality, to children.

In my constituency, an undercover reporter was able to buy cannabis, cocaine and prescription drugs over the counter right in the centre of our towns. Although the police have taken action and there have been a number of arrests, we should not have to wait for the BBC to expose a crime for action to be taken. My constituents ask, “Why is this shop, which has been so publicly exposed as dealing drugs, still open?” I do not yet have a satisfactory answer.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. On 17 July 2025, trading standards closed an illicit vape shop on Honiton High Street and seized a large amount of illicit tobacco. Does he think that this change in the law, which allows the closure of shops for 12 months rather than just three, will mean that these shops might close altogether?

Yes. It is a really positive development, because it allows His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trading standards and the police to investigate properly in those 12 months and build a case so that they can go after not just the shop but the people behind it.

On Cradley Heath High Street, there is something that sits right in our faces: we have 12 mini markets and vape shops right opposite the largest Tesco in the area. Although last year the Chartered Trading Standards Institute ranked Birmingham as the country’s No. 1 hotspot for dodgy shops, it is undeniable that the problem is going over the border into the Black Country and affecting our area.

Hotspot teams are looking at this issue in certain areas, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also a problem in rural and coastal areas, such as mine in Falmouth? The problem is spreading across the country—he talks about it moving into the Black Country—so perhaps we should look at extending the hotspot areas much wider.

My hon. Friend makes a really good point about the challenges that seaside towns face. I agree that this blight is affecting the whole country, so we need to look at all the hotspots.

The impacts of this problem are really big. Organised crime costs the UK £47 billion each year. Money from the economy that could be invested in the private sector or public services instead goes into organised crime, funding violence, people smuggling and other criminal activity. The local impacts are really serious, too. Legitimate traders are seeing footfall decrease, as law abiding people avoid towns. Parents are worried that their children can buy vapes and laughing gas under age, in the open. Local residents fear for their safety when they see knife crime and other criminality spilling out of these businesses. Our high streets are the heart of our towns, and our communities care deeply when crime starts to encroach upon them.

However, there has been real progress. I welcome what the Government have achieved in the last few months. There has been a series of very positive announcements, responding to the calls from our communities to do something about these dodgy shops.

Since the recent fire on Union Street in my constituency, there has been a lot of focus on illicit vape shops, and there have been calls for further legislation. We will see what the investigation says, and then action may need to be taken. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just legislation but enforcement and having the resources available? I would welcome extra resources to ensure enforcement can take place.

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Local authority trading standards were underfunded and under resourced by between 30% and 40%, according to some estimates, during the 14 years of Conservative government. Local authorities and the police need resources to tackle this crime.

I will give some good statistics. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize has led to 3,000 premises being raided and close to 1,000 arrests. The £30 million that the Government are investing in tougher enforcement with the new high street organised crime unit is also welcome.

There are many issues that enable these shops to operate, so it is important that all agencies work together: the Home Office, trading standards, the NCA, HMRC, immigration enforcement and local police. Immigration enforcement is important because, as has been mentioned before, we see evidence that asylum seekers are being employed and exploited in these shops. They are sometimes being paid only £4 an hour, which is completely unacceptable.

The new unit gives me real hope that we can achieve co ordination, and that organised crime groups will not fall through the gaps between agencies and will face the full force of the law. We have talked about resources. Seventy five new police officers have been recruited, and there are extra resources for customs and trading standards to prioritise the work. The tougher enforcement standards, including the doubling of closure orders to 12 months, are vital for this work.

When tackling serious organised crime, the National Crime Agency employs the 4P approach: pursue, prevent, prepare and protect. The Government have taken positive steps to enable the authorities to pursue offenders, with more co ordination, resources and tougher enforcement. There is scope to do more to prevent the opportunities for these dodgy businesses to open in the first place. There is a good example in the Netherlands, where the Bibob Act allows public authorities to conduct integrity checks on individuals and businesses before granting licences and permits.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important issue. As he will know, the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 recently came on to the statute book, which I hugely support as a member of the all party parliamentary group on smoking and health. There is a licensing scheme under that Act, enabling local authorities to have more control over shops that sell products such as tobacco and vapes. There will be a clear method to facilitate the reduction of those shops on our high streets. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to get on with the consultation on that licensing scheme as soon as possible?

I agree that it sounds like a very helpful proposal. On the subject of permits and businesses, there is much more the Government can do to restrict the permitting of high street bookmakers, which many Members have spoken about.

In the Netherlands, public authorities are allowed to conduct integrity checks on individuals and businesses before granting licences and permits, and local authorities have the power to refuse applications if they think there is a serious risk that a permit could be used for criminal activities. I can see the benefit of that, as the police or other intelligence agencies could advise whether individuals are linked to organised crime, or whether it is reasonable to assume that 12 mini markets and vape shops in one small town centre are operating legitimately.

My hon. Friend mentioned mini marts. We had none in Carlisle 12 months ago, and now we have at least 12 or 15. They are all distinguished by having wrappered windows that cannot be seen through. There is a presumption in planning guidance that windows should be active, whereas these are obviously inactive. Does my hon. Friend think that more needs to be done to enforce existing planning laws to ensure that these shops do not open or, if they do, that they are closed down for contravening planning guidelines?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Why are they wrapping the windows? The first question must be: what are they trying to hide? We want our town centres to be welcoming, warm and open. That practice is completely against that type of approach.

Could the Minister tell me whether the Government are considering similar measures to the Dutch Bibob Act? There are also far too many loopholes in Companies House, which BBC research reveals is wide open to abuse. Our dodgy shops group is proposing that greater powers be given to Companies House to identify and clamp down on fake company directors, with escalating fines or a “three strikes and you’re out” system.

In my patch in Thurrock, we unsurprisingly do not have a lot of London tourist tat shops, which are synonymous with dodgy directors changing hands every few weeks. We do, however, have a number of really suspect home goods shops, which sell goods that are often faulty. People have no recourse to a refund if the products go wrong, because the shops change hands every three to six months. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do more to crack down on such evasion of responsibility by businesses changing hands through Companies House?

I agree, and I hope the Government are looking to close some of the loopholes at Companies House and strengthen oversight of fake directors who are abusing the system.

Finally, I am concerned about whether landlords can be complicit in the organised crime that we see. We propose increasing the transparency and accountability of landlords to deter complicity, but also more support for law abiding landlords to take action against tenants suspected of breaking the law. Will the Minister say more about whether the Government are considering increasing that accountability and the power of landlords to help to deal with illegality on our high streets?

Cradley Heath High Street used to be the thriving heart of our community. I was appalled but not surprised to see drug dealing in the open in one of the shops in our town. Through under resourcing and inattention, we have allowed the problem of dodgy shops to become a visible stain on our communities, so I welcome the Government’s really positive steps on that so far. The new taskforce, tougher powers and more resources will make a significant difference, but I call for those resources to be focused on the Black Country, which is becoming more of a hotspot, as people have heard in my speech today. I would like the Government to consider doing even more and at whether we could look abroad for lessons on further tools to use to prevent more dodgy shops from opening. I am referring to licensing, registration and requirements for landlords who knowingly or unknowingly facilitate organised crime. We need to get our high streets back to being the law abiding, beating heart of our towns that we all want to see.

Order. Everyone who wishes to speak is bobbing. Because of the number of hon. Members who have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate, and with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing a time limit on Back Bench speeches of four minutes.

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House and for all of us who are here being able to speak on it as a result.

I rise to highlight a pressing crisis directly impacting local businesses and community safety across my Strangford constituency. At the epicentre of the constituency sits Newtownards, where we have Conway Square, a booming hub of local commerce. Yet Newtownards, my biggest town, currently faces the difficulty faced throughout this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: illicit activity impacting the fabric of the retail sector. Our high streets are the economic and social lifeblood of these distinct communities. Whether we are talking about the local traders in Newtownards, the independent businesses in Comber or the traditional shopkeepers at the Thursday market in Ballynahinch, they are forced to act as an unassisted frontline defence against an escalating wave of retail theft, criminal damage and antisocial behaviour.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see a clampdown? We welcome the Government moving on this issue, but if there is a systematic clampdown, we have to try to ensure that the Government also recognise that we must not have even more derelict, empty properties on the high street. We need a combination of a crackdown on illegal shops, but also efforts to redevelop the high street for legal shops so that shoppers can enjoy them.

My hon. Friend always brings wise words and wisdom to the debate.

We frequently hear the narrative that Northern Ireland maintains historic lows in overall crime, but sweeping generalities do not always give the true picture. I know that the Police Service of Northern Ireland is not the Minister’s responsibility, but to give a perspective from Northern Ireland, which I always do in these debates—it is really important that we put it on the record—the PSNI has said that the overall crime statistics are down by some 2.3%, but in relation to my constituency of Strangford and to Newtownards in particular, Ards and North Down has bucked the positive trend. It stands out as one of the few policing districts to experience an increase in recorded crime. Unfortunately that is happening, and I am here to reflect that in this debate.

Long term trend data reveals that, across the region, theft offences have risen substantially, driven heavily by a massive surge in shoplifting. It has reached the point at which shoplifting has hit some of the highest levels ever recorded in Northern Ireland’s recent history. In town centres such as Newtownards, the commercial crime wave is felt acutely. CrimeRate shows that the overall crime rate in Newtownards sits at 44 crimes per 1,000 people, which is 24% higher than the Northern Ireland average. That, again, gives an indication of the issues.

Crucially for our high streets, theft and shoplifting make up more than 20% of all recorded crime in Newtownards. That goes along with high density antisocial behaviour and criminal damage, which intimidate shoppers and drive down footfall. As National Trading Standards warns, organised crime groups are actively infiltrating high street retail spaces. On our own doorsteps, shopkeepers face organised, brazen shoplifting rings that steal to order, often funding low level drug networks or residual paramilitary elements that still attempt to exert control over our towns. I have been in touch with PSNI Superintendent Johnston McDowell to ensure that the police have a proactive partnership with the shopkeepers, the chamber of trade and individuals to reduce that. To expect a small business owner already battling inflation and footfall migration to absorb the financial losses of relentless retail theft is completely unsustainable.

The Minister is always responsive, and I know that she travels to Northern Ireland regularly. I also know that she likes going there—I am very biased, but doesn’t everybody? I believe we must work with the Northern Ireland Executive to allocate dedicated and visible town centre foot patrols that cover the full span of the constituency with a heavy permanent presence in Newtownards and stretching down as far as Ballynahinch so as to deter organised theft rings.

It is a pleasure to intervene on the hon. Gentleman for a change. I have been raising similar issues with Middlesbrough council about Middlesbrough town centre. I am assured that the council is bringing forward a plan soon. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there needs to be closer collaboration between local government and central Government to address these issues?

The hon. Gentleman is right to add that issue to the debate. I know that when the Minister responds he will encourage us all in that regard.

I am not going to take all the time that has been awarded to me in this debate, but I will say that we must be more aggressive with the legal outcomes for repeat offenders. Shoplifting cannot be dismissed as a victimless, low level offence; it is not that for those who are trying to make their living.

What discussions has the Minister had with the Justice Minister back home to ensure that we can do better? We need cross district town centre shared networks with enhanced capital funding to expand localised business crime partnerships—that is the police, chamber of trade and local shopkeepers. We also need to share live digital intelligence and instantly flag active shoplifting groups. After Newtownards earlier this week, will those groups be in Bangor, Comber, Ballynahinch or Saintfield the following week? Our constituents and retailers across Strangford and this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland deserve town centres that feel welcoming, prosperous and secure. Let us deliver the legislative teeth that we need to ensure our shopkeepers and businesses are able to trade.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this important debate.

This is an issue that communities such as Leigh and Atherton face every single day. Quite frankly, my constituents have had enough. Illegal and exploitative businesses are undermining public safety, damaging our high streets and eroding community pride. Whether it is vape shops, barber shops or mini marts, people are fed up with outlets appearing overnight, often acting as fronts for organised crime, and residents having no say. Meanwhile, as we have heard, legitimate businesses that follow the rules and contribute to the local economy are struggling to survive.

I have been working alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on a campaign to shut these dodgy shops down. That campaign now has support from over 50 Members—many of them are here today—and that shows just how widespread and serious the issue has become. Enforcement action such as Operation Machinize, which took place in Leigh and Atherton back in 2024 and led to numerous arrests, and the recent raids by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in London show what can be achieved. They also highlight a fundamental problem: the system does not stop these businesses opening in the first place, nor does it give the authorities the tools to keep them closed.

I thank the Government because they have taken welcome steps and are listening. Those steps include new funding, a dedicated organised crime unit and stronger closure powers. I particularly welcome the extension of closure orders to up to 12 months, and I thank the Minister for working alongside us on that. However, we must be honest: this will not be enough on its own. Too often when one shop is shut, the same individuals reopen nearby within weeks. Residents see it and I see it. At the same time, the spread of these outlets continues, particularly in more deprived communities. Leigh and Atherton does not need any more of them.

We need to go further. We need stronger enforcement powers and proper resourcing for trading standards and local authorities. Trading standards needs more teeth.

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for tackling this issue. I echo the remarks from her and my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) about the need to learn the lessons from our colleagues in Holland. We have all talked about the perverse issue of frankly playing whack a-mole, whereby shops pop up and bad faith actors hide behind a smokescreen, whether from trading standards, HMRC, the National Crime Agency or local police forces that are responsible for addressing enforcement. Will she echo my calls for the Home Office to work closely with colleagues in HMRC, the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to make sure that we are addressing the cumulative impact of the harm caused to local areas?

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a huge champion of that cause and who did so much work on it before entering this House, and I echo his comments.

We need joined up action across Government and a commitment to maybe extend the funding beyond the initial three year period. It cannot be a short term fix. We need a court system that can deliver swift justice and we need tougher consequences, whether through escalating fines or a clear “three strikes and you’re out” approach so that repeat offenders cannot simply carry on.

Finally, as was mentioned earlier, it is really important that landlords and managing agents are held to account. Greater due diligence is needed so that properties are not repeatedly let to those engaged in illicit activity. If we are serious about restoring trust in our high streets and in politics, we must deliver real change. That means backing legitimate businesses but also taking decisive action against those who are undermining our communities. If we want our high streets to thrive, they must be safe, lawful and fair. The Government have made a start, but we must go further and faster.

I want to end by thanking the Government for the work they have done so far on the issue. They have truly listened to our communities’ concerns, and I look forward to working alongside them to continue to tackle this problem on our streets.

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.

As other Members have noted, town centres are incredibly important to residents, and Huddersfield is no different. The town centre is a part of our identity; it is a reminder of our childhoods, and, for many, it represents whether a place is doing well and whether agencies, councils and Governments care about them. In too many places in the north and the midlands, people have seen the slow decline of their town centre—the place they call home. That has led to resentment and a lack of trust in politicians and agencies to get the basics right.

On top of that, the number of vape shops in England has grown by nearly 1,200% in little over a decade. While cash intensive businesses are not new, for too many residents the rate at which they are rising is alarming. The National Crime Agency estimates that at least £1 billion of criminal cash is laundered through UK high street stores each year. Not only do those stores often provide hotspots for illicit activity, they also destroy the character that makes towns so special. From my conversations with constituents at coffee mornings, at business round tables and on doorsteps, I have heard loud and clear that closing those stores is vital to injecting the life back into our town centre.

I welcome the creation of the Government’s high street organised crime unit, particularly its focus on strengthening partnership working and the intensified enforcement action on businesses that are committing these offences, which includes additional raids, closure orders and cash seizures. In November 2025, the West Yorkshire trading standards team conducted undercover raids to crack down on high street businesses suspected of laundering criminal cash. The operation seized £2.7 million of criminal assets. The feedback from those operations has been positive and they will be continuing. Will the Minister set out when further enforcement activities like those will be increased in local areas? In addition, what further steps are being taken to connect information across agencies and to flag suspicious entities so that such operations can be closed down quickly and, as other Members have said, stopped from popping up again?

A recent report by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, titled “Hidden in Plain Sight”, highlighted a corridor of crime across the north of England, from Liverpool to Hull and Grimsby. Unfortunately, Huddersfield has been ranked in the top 10 UK towns and cities with the most dodgy shops on the high street. The report calls on the Government to urgently invest in enforcement capabilities and particularly mentions trading standards.

Over the past decade, trading standards has seen its resources cut by up to 50%. In 2002, more than 4,000 staff were employed by trading standards, but in 2025, there are now 2,300. Since then, crime has become more visible, so will the Minister confirm the steps being taken to support trading standards on the ground? We must ensure that our town centres can once again become vibrant spaces worth fighting for.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on introducing the debate. There are a lot of ideas and much intent to tackle this problem, because high streets are so evocative. They are a visual symbol of economic challenges and act as an ever present reminder of what has been lost. That is one reason why people feel so strongly about the brazen illegality we see on high streets the length and breadth of the country. It is no longer a question of isolated bad actors but of a regulatory system that has been repeatedly outpaced by evolving criminal business models.

My constituents are angry that where once there was an active high street with household names, there now stand illegal vape shops, mini marts and a suspicious number of barbers. They know that something is not right, particularly when legitimate businesses have already vacated the area due to reduced footfall. But the law is fighting back. I have joined local enforcement activity in Ellesmere Port, where all the agencies came together and carried out co ordinated raids, resulting in the seizure of illicit tobacco and vape products, with shops shut down under court orders. That was most welcome, but what was seized was sadly just the tip of the iceberg, and we see a repeated cycle of enforcement and re emergence with connected parties.

It is the recurring nature of these rackets that shakes people’s confidence in the system, especially when they are so brazen, so I absolutely welcome the Government’s intent to tackle the problem. There is much to commend in the blitz on dodgy shops programme, which contains measures that finally go beyond rhetoric. The creation of the high street organised crime unit has long been called for, and the commitment to double the time for which a shop can be closed after breaching the law will also help, but as a number of people have said, we can go further.

A Business and Trade Committee inquiry found that “enforcement agencies do not have the necessary powers to permanently close”

rogue businesses. The director of National Trading Standards said, “you seize, go back, seize and go back”.

It is clear that the tools we have are not fit for purpose. Councils should have the power to close premises permanently without having to go to court, and landlords should not get off the hook if their property is used for illegal purposes. Landlords need help to make wise choices, and they could be encouraged to flag any suspicious or illegal behaviour. Those landlords who are indifferent about who is renting their property should have nowhere to hide if illegal activity is happening on their premises. If landlords are indifferent, they should face criminal sanctions, too.

We also need a tougher approach on the collection of fines. Too often, they go uncollected. According to the Home Office, £18 million of fines were issued against illegal car washes in 2025, but the Department could not say how many had actually been paid. After a freedom of information request, we know that the figure is around 5%. We need a proper deterrent; these fines must mean something, and there should be tough enforcement action against individuals.

I know that a number of Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks, but I want finally to say that I welcome the action taken so far. There is no shortage of ideas about how we can go further. It is good to see that the problem is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Regenerating our high streets is critical to national renewal, but to regenerate them, we first of all have to reclaim them. Illicit activity on our high streets is an evocative issue that frustrates law abiding people and erodes confidence in the state’s ability to tackle crime, so I absolutely welcome the blitz on dodgy shops and the action to back up the rhetoric, but we need to go further by addressing the problems at source, to prevent illegal shops from opening in the first place and then leaving no hiding place for those who are found to have broken the law.

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.

There are also situations where people try to report but are too scared or worried, so there needs to be some sort of process so that people can report without fear of retribution.

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.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this vital debate. When I speak in this House about illicit activity in high street shops, I do so on behalf of the people of Birmingham Erdington, including those in Kingstanding, Castle Vale and south Oscott. These residents take great pride in their community and deserve to feel safe on their local high street.

Areas such as Erdington High Street and Slade Road are not simply a row of shops but the centre of community life. They are where people go to work, shop, meet neighbours and access essential services. However, for too long, organised criminal activity has been allowed to take hold in my community, undermining legitimate businesses and damaging public confidence. We are not talking about isolated incidents or minor trading offences; we are talking about organised criminal networks using retail premises as fronts for wider illicit activity—selling illegal tobacco, counterfeit goods, untaxed alcohol and unregulated vapes, which normally end up in the hands of young people.

In my constituency, Operation Fearless and Operation Skybridge have resulted in one of the largest seizures of illicit goods in Birmingham’s history. I pay tribute to the work of our local police officers, trading standards teams and everyone involved in Operation Fearless and Operation Skybridge. Residents have seen the difference that visible enforcement activity can make.

Since the launch of Operation Fearless, there has been a concerted effort to tackle antisocial behaviour, antisocial crime, shoplifting and wider criminality that has affected confidence in the town centre for many years. Despite those efforts, enforcement agencies are often placed in an impossible position: shops are closed down, only for the same operators to open under a different name days or weeks later. There is also growing local concern about the wider criminal exploitation linked to some of these premises.

My hon. Friend is speaking passionately about enforcement in Birmingham Erdington. Does she agree that key organisations in the private sector have a lot of information? All these shops are banked by someone. The Government can drive down the barriers to information sharing between the private and public sectors to identify suspicious activity so that enforcement agencies—be they the police, trading standards or the National Crime Agency—can have the greatest possible impact when they conduct these sorts of raids.

My hon. Friend makes a vital point. It needs to be joined up. The one thing I have learned from being an MP and seeing things work in my area is that when we work together, we get things done.

Organised criminal networks are operating across multiple organisations and exploiting vulnerable individuals. That is why we need stronger and faster closure powers, better support for trading standards teams and greater accountability for landlords who repeatedly rent properties to those engaged in illicit activity. I welcome the Government’s work to date, but I ask the Minister what further support the Government will provide to build on the success of operations such as Fearless and Skybridge at a hyper local level. What steps will be taken to ensure that local authorities and police forces have the long term powers and resources they need to tackle organised criminal activity on our high streets once and for all?

Finally, how will the Minister work with local authorities and other agencies to tighten our planning and licensing rules, to stop unscrupulous landlords doing what they have been doing and getting away with for so many years? Residents tell MPs that it is lawless up there, because there is nothing they can do.

I remind hon. Members to be as brief as possible with their interventions. We should just get everyone in with the four minute time limit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this very important debate. This weekend, Nuneaton celebrated the 800th anniversary of its royal market charter, first awarded by King Henry III. It was an absolutely fantastic day, with live local music and our teenage, independent and normal Saturday markets all coming together to celebrate our rich history and culture and the talent of my town.

I was immensely proud to be part of that, and I was delighted to see such an increase in footfall for our traders. But my town, like so many others, has been battered by years of austerity and under investment. Transformation plans were delayed again and again, while £1.25 million was cut from our trading standards between 2011 and 2015, creating a culture of looking the other way while dodgy shop after dodgy shop moved in. In the past two years, our Labour council has begun to turn things around. Our long promised transformation plans are finally coming to fruition with the opening of Saints, the demolition approvals for and landscaping of long empty sites, and now new investment in Grayson Place, welcoming the UK’s first championship padel courts and the brilliant North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire college to our town.

Our council and its officers have worked tirelessly to diversify our town, bringing in homes, services, hospitality and leisure. An empty Debenhams has become luxury apartments, and an old nightclub has become Saints—thriving community assets. Footfall is rising again, up more than 24,000 in the final quarter, with 2 million visits to my town centre this year. Businesses are returning and confidence is growing. We are on track to restore our once vibrant town centre.

However, that progress is at risk if we cannot turn the tide on crime and dodgy shops, which threaten the very survival of historical towns such as mine. Dodgy shops undercut honest tax paying traders by selling counterfeit and illegal goods. Worse still, they undermine public confidence in our country’s ability to enforce the law. People see illegal vape shops, drugs and counterfeit products being openly sold, and suspected money laundering and organised crime, and ask how that is allowed to happen. For far too long, that question has gone unanswered.

I welcome the Government’s new funding for trading standards, and the National Crime Agency’s new powers to strengthen enforcement between the Home Office, HMRC, trading standards and the police, but that funding and those powers must reach into towns such as mine. We cannot simply force problems out of larger cities and into smaller towns without providing the resources to tackle them. We need to prevent them from arising in the first place.

While out door knocking recently, I was told by residents about cars driving at all hours of the day, including 4 am visits, with whole streets being disturbed. I raised that with our local teams, and raids took place this week. Illegal goods were seized, and we now await closure orders. However, that is all too often not the outcome. As we have heard, the endless whack a-mole situation prevents people from closing such places down permanently. If our towns are to make progress and we are to protect what we have, we must be able to close them down permanently and never allow them to open again.

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.

Crowds and antisocial behaviour outside shops are often a red flag for the activity inside them. That is an issue not just for the Home Office and HMRC, but for the police. To make our towns safe, the individuals engaging in that type of activity outside shops also need to be dealt with. Does the hon. Member agree?

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.

I welcome your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing the debate. The Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, is currently investigating organised crime on our high streets—that is welcome.

Across Worksop, Retford and Harworth, there has been a surge in vape shops, barber shops and mini marts. They are clustered close together and often have barely any customers. Local people are asking a very simple question: how do such businesses survive?

I certainly hear the same thing in Mansfield. Residents raise concerns with me when they see businesses that seem to operate without customers but somehow remain open and trade. Does my hon. Friend agree that, where there is evidence of that type of activity, the public are right to expect rapid enforcement of the law?

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I strongly believe that such businesses are money laundering fronts. There needs to be close police scrutiny of them, and greater partnership with other authorities to monitor those shops and shut them down as quickly as possible.

Local traders and residents are rightly concerned. Earlier this year, I decided to take a closer look. I held a local inquiry, alongside Julie Leigh, the leader of Bassetlaw district council; Sally Gillborn, the chief executive of our business improvement district; and Michael Bullen, a local businessman. They deal with this issue day in, day out. The message that we received was clear: the system is not working. Planning rules are too weak, licensing is underpowered and enforcement is stretched.

We set out some practical recommendations. First, the Government must give councils real control over their high streets. At the moment, the clustering of such shops just happens and local communities are left to deal with the consequences. Secondly, we need proper regulation of vape and tobacco retailers—a licensing scheme is long overdue. Thirdly, we cannot ignore the harder question. Where we see cash heavy businesses with little visible trade, it is right to ask whether they have links to wider criminal activity. Such links must be properly investigated, and enforcement needs backing. Licensing fees have not kept pace with other developments, trading standards officers are under pressure and the relevant data is not being used as it should be.

This is not just about Whitehall; it is also about what happens locally. We need visible neighbourhood policing back in our town centres, with named officers, a consistent presence and real relationships with businesses. The Nottinghamshire police and crime commissioner listened to my call for a police station in Worksop, and I welcome the announcement that it will be opening shortly, but we need simple ways to report concerns, and confidence that those concerns will be acted on. We need co ordination; at the moment, too much intelligence is siloed. At its heart, this is about fairness—fairness for the businesses doing the right thing—and confidence for the public that their high street is safe and properly regulated. What we are seeing is not tolerated or isolated; it is serious, and we need action right now.

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. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) on their work to combat dodgy shops.

As is evident from the number of Members here—particularly Labour Members—this issue concerns many of our constituencies. Sadly, my Thurrock constituency is not immune to dodgy shops and illegality and criminality on the high street. Like others, we have seen a massive proliferation of vape shops and barber shops, as well as—if not mini marts—very odd home goods shops springing up out of nowhere, with two or three competitors directly opposite, and selling goods that probably explode the minute they are turned on and are no good for anyone. Those phoenix shops close down or change hands after five to six months, evading tax, evading business rates and providing no good and no use to the town at all.

Indeed, one such shop, on Grays High Street in my local town, now does not even bother to remove the merchandise or move it around; it just sticks a Sharpie written sign up on the door every six months saying that it is under new management, which is absolutely appalling. We know where the issues lie: spending on trading standards has been reduced by around 50% over the last decade.

Considering the strength of feeling and the level of criminality that we have heard about, does my hon. Friend not find it shocking that, on top of long term cuts of £100,000 in its medium term forecasts, Warwickshire county council has just frozen £55,000 that was allocated to tackling rogue traders?

That is indeed shocking and very short sighted.

The real issue in my area is that our council is under intervention, so its ability to plan and take enforcement action, and to put planning conditions on town centres to better reflect what people are after—rather than the best way for businesses to turn a profit—is somewhat hampered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) got there first in mentioning the disgraceful cuts by Reform led Warwickshire county council. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) agree that it is also rather disgraceful that no Reform UK Members of Parliament are here for this debate? They often talk about the importance of our high streets, so where are they?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The lack not only of Reform UK Members but—other than the shadow Minister—of Conservative Members is disgraceful and a real shame. Labour Members are trying to make positive change to bring communities together and tackle this issue, which, as we hear time and again, is a root cause of people’s disaffection and disillusionment with the state of their town centres and, indeed, of our country.

When I walk down Grays High Street, Derwent Parade or Civic Square in Tilbury, I find it an incredibly depressing experience—I know that Members will be familiar with that. There are big gaps where shops used to be. Those shops were the pride—the crown jewels—of the town, and they are being replaced with shops that bring no real benefit, including dodgy vape shops and other phoenix shops that change hands every few months. It leads to a sense that high streets are not for decent people or for the community; they are for those who seek to turn a quick buck, who do not play fair or by the rules, and who are often the very sharp end of a criminal network that makes hundreds of millions of pounds and exploits vulnerable people. We all know this.

I am delighted that the Government have announced the high street organised crime unit and that Thurrock will be one of the areas targeted for attention. Bringing together a co ordinated response using the National Crime Agency, trading standards and the local police force will start to turn the tide on some of the illegal and illicit activity that we are seeing on our high street.

But I would like to pose a question about what comes next. If dodgy shops are closed down and closure periods are extended, we can manage to stamp them out for good, but we need to think about what they will be replaced with; an empty, dead high street is no good for anyone. I have been trying to encourage my local council to use some Pride in Place impact funding, particularly around Grays High Street, to open up shops closed down for illicit activity to the community as welcoming spaces. We could do something that the community can be proud of and create a place where people might actually want to go and spend time in.

We must have a co ordinated effort across Government and at the local level about what to do. If we end criminality and illegality, what do we want our high streets to look like? They cannot go back to being the high streets of the 1950s—we are not going back there—but what does the high street of the future look like? What is a space that we can all be proud of, that is welcoming and encouraging for our communities and that is not under the purview of criminality? Let us reclaim our high streets and regenerate them once and for all.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate and the constructive manner in which he introduced the subject, which is important for many Members across the House.

I thank many hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted the securing of action against illegal trading in Honiton High Street. I took note of the comments made by the hon. Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns) about planning controls, screening windows and changes of use in planning conditions; I am supportive of those approaches. The hon. Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Halesowen also pointed out that landlords need to be tackled; I will return to that later, as I will to the point made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) about the burdensome need to go to court to follow through with these orders.

High streets are the heart of our communities, and we cannot allow them to become sites of decline. Both Taunton and Wellington have a fabulous range of independent traders, shopkeepers and publicans, who are making ends meet in a financial climate made much harder by recent tax increases. Footfall in Taunton, however, is up by 4.6% in large part due to their efforts. The Government must be on their side, and we must be clear that criminality on our high streets will not be tolerated. The hollowing out of our police force by the previous Government has allowed organised crime gangs to gain far too much of a foothold in our communities, with local communities paying the price.

Let us make no mistake: organised crime sits behind and at the top of all this, either employing or—quite often—exploiting migrants as suits their purposes and to do their dirty work. A recent BBC investigation found someone trying to sell a shop to its undercover reporter for £18,000; a Facebook group listing dozens of mini marts, barbers, car washes and takeaways for sale; ghost directors charging illegal workers up to £300 a month to register mini marts in their names; and people working 14-hour shifts in mini marts for only £4 an hour.

Thanks to a local publican in my constituency, who came forward with vital information back in 2024, I raised illegal trading in Taunton and Wellington with Somerset trading standards and local police. I pay tribute to police officers such as Andy, the trading standards officers and my Lib Dem Somerset councillor colleagues, who oversaw the work that led to a number of high profile closures in Taunton. Taunton Market, Mr Taunton and Top Market have rightly been closed down, as has the Danya Store in Wellington only last week, following just the kind of crackdown that was needed and that I have supported.

It cannot be said too often to anyone flouting these laws in Taunton and Wellington or anywhere across the country: illegal trading is not welcome—you will be closed down and you will be prosecuted. But we need to go further. Polling commissioned by the Liberal Democrats found that three in five Brits want to see more power to control the number of vape shops on their high streets. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has pointed out that we need properly resourced trading standards services, which means tackling the local government funding crisis—particularly the social care funding crisis, which is a burden under which councils such as Somerset are struggling.

Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026, the Government increased the duration of temporary closure notices from 48 hours to 72 hours by amending the Anti social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and they have recently said that they will extend closure orders from six months to 12 months to give investigators more time to pursue prosecutions. The Liberal Democrats welcome those changes, but we want the Government to go further. Under Liberal Democrat plans, councils would be given the power to issue closure orders to more swiftly shut down any shops engaging in criminality. Those powers would be expanded to ensure that repeat offenders’ premises are closed down permanently, and those whose ownership is under question would remain shut until the owner comes forward and faces up to the law.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for a return to proper community policing, which must mean giving the bobby on the ground more powers to deal with this menace more easily and, crucially, with less paperwork. Officers currently spend almost half their shift on paperwork, but we all want them out and about in our communities. The Liberal Democrats propose giving officers the power to close down premises using closure notices for seven days, not just 72 hours. More importantly, they would not have to apply to the courts for an order, as is currently required under section 80 of the 2014 Act, safeguarded by the requirement that the superintendent must have evidence of more than one instance of illegal activity and by right of appeal to the courts. Police officers would then not have the onerous task of preparing an application to the court every time they encounter illegal trading and want to halt it, as they are currently required to do under section 80.

Our changes would mean that officers are able to close premises quickly and easily, reducing the criminal scope for phoenixing—setting up premises quickly under a different company—and constraining the ability to set up nearby alternative premises. The current law allowing closure notices—section 76 of the 2014 Act—restricts the grounds to nuisance and disorder. Criminal activity is not mentioned, so a new law would correct that omission.

Measures need to be taken against landlords who repeatedly rent their units to dodgy companies carrying out illegal activity. My Somerset councillor colleagues, supported by trading standards, have called for civil penalties against landlords who knowingly let their premises be used for illegal trading. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute has also made that point. Landlords who repeatedly offend should lose their premises for at least two years; the premises should be handed over to the local council to be let out at reduced rents to genuine local businesses that play by the rules.

The changes that the Home Secretary recently announced cannot come soon enough, but the Government should be much bolder. The Liberal Democrats want to see more police on our streets to restore proper community policing; swifter closure orders and notices, lasting up to seven days, with an end to the burden of paperwork that they currently generate, which slows our police officers down; and penalties for landlords who repeatedly turn a blind eye to whom they are renting their properties. These criminal gangs must be given no quarter in Taunton and Wellington or any other town centre in the country.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate.

For far too many people and in far too many places, the high street has become a visible sign of where the British state has lost control. People suspect that the cash only takeaways, barber’s shops and vape shops that they see springing up on their high streets are symptomatic of a deeper rot. As the hon. Gentleman and many others set out, in many cases they are right. All too often, such high street shops are linked to organised crime, including through the sale of illicit or counterfeit goods, money laundering, immigration crime and people smuggling.

Last month, the BBC uncovered that people smugglers are directing migrants to pay for illegal channel crossings using a network of high street businesses, including mobile phone shops. In 2024 alone, trading standards seized more than 1 million illegal vapes and 19 million illegal cigarettes. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) mentioned, the National Crime Agency estimates that £1 billion of crime linked cash is laundered through high street businesses every year. It is clearly difficult to produce reliable estimates of things such as money laundering, so the real figure may be even higher. The money laundered by such businesses often fuels human trafficking or the drug trade.

The problem is only getting worse. According to one survey, 99% of trading standards professionals have seen an increase in the number of cash intensive businesses opening on their local high streets in recent years. Cash intensive businesses often provide the best fronts for money laundering and the trade in illicit and counterfeit goods.

While businesses that do the right thing are struggling with ever more regulation and ever higher taxes, businesses with links to organised crime are thriving. To combat the rise in illicit activity on our high streets, we must understand the criminal networks that sustain that activity and the link in many cases between those networks and immigration.

Let us imagine, for example, an organised crime gang involved in the drugs trade. When that gang sells drugs to people, payment will most often be made in cash, because cash is harder to trace. However, if that business wants to bring its cash into the normal financial system, it will need to launder the money so as not to provoke suspicion. If a person suddenly deposits tens of thousands of pounds with no clear income source, a bank will register that as suspicious, but not so if the money is deposited by a high street business.

The gang might therefore set up a high street shop—something cash intensive and with low overhead costs, such as a vape shop. The shop records its transactions but adds to those real purchases a series of phantom cash sales used to disguise the illicit cash raised by the sale of drugs. The deposit appears legitimate and can be backed up with paperwork. Once that cash is deposited, it can be paid out as profit to those involved in running the organisation, for example as a fake invoice to an overseas supplier that is paid out to a shell company registered abroad.

The criminal gangs involved in the drug trade operate across borders both financially and physically. They will have overseas suppliers who provide them with the drugs that they sell. These supply networks are often sustained by links between people of the same nationality, ethnicity or even extended family. Often, these drug gangs are also involved in other kinds of cross border smuggling—of counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco and, indeed, people.

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this to the attention of the Chamber today. One of the issues, which I know the Minister is well across, is the cross border trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border. A better working relationship with the Garda Síochána is critical. Can the Minister confirm that the Garda Síochána, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police forces here on the mainland can work together to better defeat paramilitary and organised crime groups?

The hon. Member is right that the common travel area presents particular challenges. It is crucial to maintain the sorts of relationships he is talking about in a way that keeps the public safe in Northern Ireland and the whole country.

If high street shops are already laundering money on behalf of these gangs, they might also sell the things that the gang illegally imports. They might serve as points of contact for people who are looking to smuggle people into Britain illegally, as was highlighted by the BBC’s most recent investigation.

Those shops might also help criminal gangs to bring people into this country by sponsoring their visas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) has previously highlighted, many cash intensive high street businesses sponsor an absurd number of visas. On paper, these people work for a legitimate high street business, but in practice many of them will be using that apparently legitimate employment as cover for their work as part of a criminal gang. Others may be working, or forced to work, for dramatically less than the minimum wage, which both exploits them and distorts the labour market. That happens everywhere in the country. In the stunning town of Tenterden in my constituency, Indian restaurant Badsha was recently found to have been employing illegal migrants for a fourth time, racking up £120,000 in fines and not paying a single penny.

I would appreciate it if the Minister set out how the Home Office thinks about and plans to tackle the links between illicit activity on the high street, organised crime, immigration and people smuggling, and how the Department’s plans for tackling illicit activity on the high street take account of those links. Does it keep a record of how many businesses raided under high street organised crime operations were also registered visa sponsors? Does it keep a record of the visa status and visa type of those employed by these businesses?

What proportion of high street businesses employing people illegally are repeat offenders like the one in my constituency? Will the Minister share what proportion of Operation Machinize targets in cases related to counterfeit goods, illegal tobacco or vapes, money laundering or the sale of drugs were also involved in illegal working, visa fraud or organised immigration crime and people smuggling?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing this excellent debate. The message I take away from it is, “You’ve done some stuff that we think is good, but we need to do a lot more.” This issue is undoubtedly one that we will all be judged on when we next stand before the electorate.

As I have in Croydon, every Member in this place will have experience of a high street that they grew up going to that they know will never again be as they remember it. We also know that we need to tell a new story for our high streets. As shops have closed for all the reasons that Members have outlined, illicit activity has stepped in. It is important to start with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft): we have not only to tackle the criminality, but to establish what we want to do with our town centres. As has been mentioned, there is some innovation across the country where town centres are growing, which is great.

The Government are very aware that we have to understand and appreciate the fact that the town centre of the future will be different, and we need to change laws and do what we can to encourage a new high street. A wider high street strategy is being pulled together at the moment; every Government Department that could possibly be relevant is coming together and asking, “What more can we do to ensure that our high streets can thrive for the businesses we want to see on them, rather than this illicit activity?”

The activity itself has been very well described, and my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) showed leadership in painting us a very good picture of the problems we see nationally. We know there is this increase in shops—I see it on my high street, as everybody does—but people are not in them, so how are they making money? What is going on in that space?

As other Members will have done, I recently joined the raid of a shop in London, which was a big joint operation between trading standards, local authorities and the police, and some of the things I learned were very uncomfortable to hear. For example, an increasing number of builders are being employed by these shop owners to build hidden cupboards so that people can hide their illegal activities. Also, there were lots of cameras in the back of the shop, but they were not there to protect the shop itself; they were to keep an eye on the people working there—these are nasty criminal gangs that want to ensure that the people they employ are not stealing from them. The young lad who was in the shop when we did the raid had nothing to do with the ownership; apparently, the owner was away. As has been mentioned, understanding who owns some of these properties is a complicated and difficult challenge. I am very well aware of the problem that we are trying to fix.

I am very grateful to the many Members who pointed to the important work that the Government have introduced—I do not want to diminish it by saying that we of course need to go further. We have the new high street organised crime unit in the Home Office, as well as the £30 million that has been allocated, in part, to fund the National Crime Agency, and £6 million of which is going to trading standards. Many Members have talked about how the ability of trading standards to respond to today’s challenges has been completely wiped out, so that money will help them. Some £1.5 million has been allocated to immigration enforcement, just to add to all the other work that is happening in immigration—my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen asked about the connections, which of course exist; just today, there was an immigration raid in my constituency—and £1.5 million is going from that pot to HMRC so that it can do some work on this issue. Members talked about Companies House; there is more work to be done there, for sure.

The closure powers—the closure notice extension to 72 hours and, looking ahead, the longer, 12-month closure—are important, and I am glad that Members have welcomed them. I was very interested in what Members had to say about the Netherlands. As Policing Minister, I do not really get to go on trips, but maybe there should be a Netherlands trip with the campaign group to see what is being done there. In the absence of such a trip, I will certainly read more about how that regime is working. That is a really important point: we should look to other countries and understand what they are doing.

We are open to all of the many good suggestions that Members have made. There is a ministerial group chaired by the new Security Minister; she would have been here, but she could not be, as she is introducing legislation today. I am also on the committee, along with all the Departments that Members would expect to be there. There was a push for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to do work in this space; I know that it is looking at that, and I will certainly talk to it more about that. I will say that all the suggestions that have been made today were mentioned in that first ministerial meeting; we talked about all the same issues. I know we need to go further and faster and we need to push forward, but there was nothing surprising in the suggestions that hon. Members made; these are very sensible things that we are looking at and want to take forward.

There will be big national pushes under Operation Machinize. For obvious reasons, I cannot say when they will be, but Operation Machinize has worked effectively; when all the agencies work together, there is a much more effective outcome. All Members made useful suggestions: more support for trading standards; looking at licensing and more powers for local authorities; data sharing—that is an important suggestion, which I certainly agree with—a place for direct reporting into trading standards, which is an interesting one; and more powers to tackle landlords as well as the organised crime.

The Home Office’s policing reform programme will, I hope, help us tackle these kinds of issues much more effectively. Setting up a national police service could tackle this co ordinated, serious organised crime in a much better way. At the moment, every time there is a new issue, we have to set up a structure to tackle it at national level. The national police service will be there to do that. It will bring together the National Crime Agency, counter terrorism and all the other national organisations. We know that some of this money laundering is driving terrorism, for example, and at the moment two different bodies are tackling that. Bringing it all together and having co ordination at the centre will help.

At the bedrock of our policing policy, we have the commitment to 13,000 more neighbourhood officers on our streets. That will make a significant difference in how people feel about their high streets and in the criminal activity that we are able to tackle. When people mention, for example, kids hanging about outside the illegal shops and doing things that we think they should not be doing, the police will be there to tackle those problems.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen again for securing this debate, and I thank all Members—

Will the Minister give way?

Oh, yes—I forgot to talk about Northern Ireland.

I hope the Minister does not mind my asking, but would she take the time, as she often does on her visits to Northern Ireland, to engage with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister, Naomi Long? There are lots of things we can do better together, and we can share ideas, so will the Minister take that opportunity on one of her many visits to Northern Ireland?

Yes, of course. Forgive me; I should have responded to that earlier. The hon. Member also made the point about illicit trade across all our nations, and we need to work together to tackle that as well.

I will end just as I began, by saying that we will be judged on this when we next stand before—

Will the Minister accept another intervention?

I will take one more.

I am very grateful. I just want to clarify one point about planning controls. Key points were made about whether shops are actually shops if their windows are completely covered. If planning guidance was changed, that might open the way for enforcement under the existing system. Will the Minister get that message through to MHCLG?

Yes, of course. There are several areas for MHCLG to look at, and I know that it is already looking at what more powers we can have to close down the shops and stop them opening in the first place, as well as over the clustering of shops. We need to look at all those issues.

I thank everybody again. I very much get the message that we have started a good piece of work, but there is a lot more to do.

We can see the scale of the problem across the country from how many people have come to the debate today from different nations, cities, towns, seaside resorts and rural areas. It is great to see such interest. I am pleased about the steps the Government have taken so far. I thank the Minister in particular for taking away what the taskforce has been doing, which is really important work. We all know that a lot of this is down to cuts to trading standards and big cuts to police in the past, so the steps we are taking to resource those are welcome. I encourage the Minister to work with this group of MPs, as I am sure she will, as we go through changes and we can have some real results.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of tackling illicit activity in high street shops.

Sitting suspended.

I beg to move, That this House has considered transport requirements in the Marston Vale.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope this can be a constructive debate. I am not here to bash the Government or to stand in the way of progress; I am here to open a dialogue with the Minister on behalf of the people I serve in Mid Bedfordshire.

The Marston Vale in Mid Bedfordshire contains historical villages such as Cranfield, Marston Moretaine, Lidlington, Stewartby and Brogborough, as well as the new town of Wixams. It also sits at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda. The Universal UK resort will be a £50 billion boost to the UK’s economy, bringing millions of visitors every year to Kempston Hardwick. East West Rail, connecting the intellectual powerhouses of Oxford and Cambridge, will run along the Marston Vale line, stopping at Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby. The merger of Cranfield University with King’s College London will bring further world class research to the Marston Vale.

The Marston Valley development will see 5,000 houses delivered across new villages between Marston Moretaine and Brogborough, and the Stewartby brickworks development will see 1,000 houses delivered on a brownfield site in Stewartby. The new town of Wixams will continue to be built out over the coming years, with thousands more houses and a new train station. The Government’s proposed new town at Milton Keynes and potential developments at Keepers Place and the Aspley Guise triangle could see tens of thousands more houses built in and around the Marston Vale.

All in, the roughly 7.5 miles between junction 13 of the M1 and the town of Kempston will soon see two nationally significant infrastructure projects, thousands of new homes and one of the UK’s leading universities, all at the centre of the Oxford Cambridge growth corridor. That is on top of existing significant sites including the Millbrook proving ground, the community forest of Marston Vale and the Woburn Forest Center Parcs.

As I said, I am not here to stand in the way of the growth that our area is set to contribute to the UK. If it is done right, there are immense opportunities for the Marston Vale, with thousands of new jobs, brilliant new transport links and new communities in our area.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I very well understand the absolute devastation caused by bad management. As I said to him beforehand, I have similar problems in my constituency in relation to the Ballynahinch bypass. We must have robust Government involvement in prioritising infrastructure, and it must be managed, wherever it may be. We cannot have a piecemeal system; we must have central Government pushing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that is the clear way forward?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. With the scale of the change that we are discussing, particularly in my constituency and also in his, it is vital that the proposals are done with, not done to, the residents of the Marston Vale and Strangford, in order to retain public support.

That means proper planning on transport infrastructure that considers the cumulative impact of these nationally significant projects on the local communities they will sit within. At the moment, I am afraid that is not happening, and public support is slipping away. Transport modelling for the various projects has been siloed and has failed to properly take into account the cumulative impact of proposals. For example, outline planning permission for the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley was granted on the basis of transport modelling that does not consider the impact of Universal UK, and Universal UK’s transport modelling does not consider the impact of the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley.

East West Rail’s proposals will increase capacity to serve Universal, but they fail to properly plan for the impact that they will have on the local road infrastructure by severing local communities. For example, to increase the number of trains on the line in response to Universal UK, East West Rail plans to close a number of level crossings in the Marston Vale and leave others with significant downtime throughout the day. That will have an enormous impact on local communities, effectively bisecting the Marston Vale along the rail line.

One of the level crossings that East West Rail has proposed to close, at Station Lane in Millbrook, is a key local route for the Marston Valley development. It is also a vital link for the Millbrook proving ground, including for the transport of military vehicles. The alternative route would direct enormous volumes of traffic down country lanes even with today’s level of demand, but we are adding thousands more houses and Europe’s biggest theme park. Roads such as Bury Ware in Lidlington are simply not equipped to cope with the volumes of traffic they are expecting.

Previous East West Rail proposals have broad local support, but the new proposals, which fail to plan for the cumulative impact of transport pressures in the Marston Vale, now risk eroding that. I urge the Minister to work with East West Rail to reconsider the impacts of its proposals on level crossings in the Marston Vale, in the light of the cumulative development impacts. We cannot allow it to irreparably damage our communities and turn our country lanes into gridlocked rat runs.

Plans to deliver a new multi storey car park in Lidlington have also caused concern that the village could end up as a park and ride for Universal UK, just one stop up the line on East West Rail. That is not nimbyism; it reflects a real local concern that good intentions alone are not plans. We cannot prevent people from parking in Lidlington and hopping on the train to Universal, but we can alleviate residents’ concerns and reduce the risk of it happening by properly planning for and delivering a park and ride elsewhere.

The new Ridgmont station just off the M1 is a prime candidate for such a park and ride, but that station’s delivery has been predicated on house building that does not yet have planning permission and is not yet included in any local plans. Disjointed planning and concerns about delivery timetables at Ridgmont leave residents in Lidlington and elsewhere fearing the worst.

Another impact of the changing demand for transport in our area is that East West Rail’s plans for Stewartby station are now out of touch with the needs of local residents. Stewartby station is relatively busy. Despite a limited rail service, the station sees around 90,000 passengers a year, almost all of them local and many of them students at Kimberley college, which is located a short walk from the current station. East West Rail’s plans for the station involve removing it from the village entirely and turning it into a gateway station for Universal UK.

To be clear, we absolutely need an East West Rail station to serve Universal UK, but very little work seems to have been done on the implications of the new station location for Stewartby residents and students of Kimberley college. If the plan remains to build a new Universal station and axe the Stewartby station entirely, Ministers need to ensure that East West Rail urgently works to produce a detailed plan for transport links between the station, Stewartby village and Kimberley college.

That plan should include details on how residents with mobility challenges will be able to get to the station, and it should set out the safeguards that Ministers will put in place to ensure that hundreds of students at Kimberley college will be kept safe when using an extremely busy station and making a much longer journey, likely on foot, from the station to the college. The alternative that I have been calling for would be to keep the current Stewartby station operational in addition to a new station serving Universal UK, with a limited stopping service operating only at peak morning and evening times.

More generally, despite a much publicised announcement on the Government’s infrastructure investment to enable Universal UK earlier this month, neither the Chancellor nor the Transport Secretary has written to me to outline specifically what that investment will deliver in my constituency. Residents in the Marston Vale want and deserve clarity from the Government on what infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, will be delivered to facilitate the arrival of millions of visitors to Europe’s biggest tourist attraction in their backyard. I hope the Minister will be able to offer some further detail in her response.

Another good example of transport pressure in our area is junction 13 of the M1, which the Minister knows I am going to mention. The Government have indicated that junction 13 will be upgraded in the early 2030s, for which my constituents are grateful, but the timeframe for upgrades needs to be urgently reviewed. Junction 13 is unsuitable now; it is already acknowledged that it is regularly severely congested. While the Marston Valley development will provide some upgrades to cope with the demand brought by those new houses, it will not consider the volume of additional traffic brought by Universal UK. Junction 13 is a key route for local traffic as well as traffic passing through our community. Given the significant increase in traffic volume, we need that upgrade now.

Junction 13 is not the only significant road infrastructure impacted by local development plans. Vehicle traffic will also use the A421 to get to the Universal UK resort from the M1. The Government have acknowledged this with their investment in slip roads from the A421 to Universal UK, but we have recently seen the significant congestion caused, even with the current levels of demand, when the A421 is closed. In September 2024, there was severe flooding on the road, which saw a dip fill with 72 million litres of water after a pumping station was overwhelmed.

Work has been done to solve that particular vulnerability, but the traffic chaos that occurred in 2024 demonstrates what happens in the Marston Vale when the A421 is out of commission. That congestion would be many times more significant if the A421 had to be shut for any reason after Universal UK is built. Any respectable transport plan for the Marston Vale must address one key question: what is our contingency plan if the A421 is out of action? We have seen no answer to that question.

Junction 13 is not the only project for which timing will be crucial. From the day that the Universal UK resort opens in 2031, millions of visitors will pour through its doors, whether we have built sufficient transport infrastructure or not. But if we have not, they will pour through its doors via gridlocked local roads designed for local traffic, not for the largest theme park in Europe. It is imperative, therefore, that the Marston Vale is home to a national effort to deliver new infrastructure as swiftly as possible. That includes having the new station at Wixams on the midland main line open from day one, it means ensuring that East West Rail between Oxford and Bedford has services running to completed modern stations with step free access, and it means having a road network, especially junction 13, that can cope with the volume of traffic we are expecting.

As I said, I did not come here to play party politics, to bash Ministers or to rail against the march of progress. I came with a specific request. What we see in the Marston Vale is not unique, but it is unusual: several projects of national significance contained within roughly 7.5 miles of Bedfordshire, split across Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council. The myriad challenges are difficult to address because there is no centralised master planning and, as a result, there is no way to mitigate the cumulative impact of the various individual proposals. That is leading to contradictory solutions.

Because there is no centralised masterplan and no single body overseeing these projects, it is also much more difficult to leverage funding to ensure that it is spent in the right places. I would like Ministers to commit to working with me, local councillors, local residents and key stakeholders, such as Universal and local developer O&H, to develop a master plan for transport in the Marston Vale. That should set out exactly what communities in the Marston Vale need to manage the various pressures on our area. It should include detail about how to manage transport pressures strategically during construction periods, and it should open a conversation about how we secure the right funding to deliver those projects.

The rewards of success are clear: enabling the Marston Vale and its residents to play the fullest part in delivering the Government’s growth agenda, right at the heart of the Oxford Cambridge growth corridor. But the costs of failure are stark: residents in the Marston Vale waking up in the 2030s to discover that they have suffered all of the downsides of growth in their communities, and that some of the benefits for the country as a whole have been squandered.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this timely debate, and I thank him for the way in which he made the case on behalf of his constituents. I also acknowledge his efforts to support the expansion of forest land in the Marston Vale.

There is significant opportunity in the Marston Vale, but it is held back by pressing transport challenges. Many communities rely on cars because public transport options do not yet provide the connectivity that people need. The Marston Vale line has historically suffered from low frequency and reliability issues, while congestion on key routes such as the A421 continues to impact daily journeys. I know that bus services can be limited or fragmented and active travel routes are not yet sufficient for many residents.

Those deficiencies affect access to work, education, healthcare and wider opportunities. They undermine growth in an area that sits at the heart of the Oxford Cambridge growth corridor, which is a priority for the Government. How we respond to the transport requirements of the Marston Vale is central to the success of the corridor as a whole, and to allow the constituents of Mid Bedfordshire to take full advantage of its growth potential.

East West Rail is fundamental to our response to the Marston Vale’s transport needs. The project was designed to tackle many of the issues that the hon. Member raised while driving national growth. The Government’s support for East West Rail represents a major investment in public transport in his constituency, as he acknowledged. It will mean going up from one passenger service per hour to five services per hour in the Marston Vale, delivering net zero passenger services using battery electric hybrid trains and significantly cutting journey times.

By upgrading and electrifying the Marston Vale line, introducing more frequent and reliable services, and delivering modern, accessible stations at Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby, East West Rail will transform the experience of rail travel for local communities. It will make rail a more attractive, dependable and sustainable option, reducing reliance on the car and helping to ease pressure on already congested roads. Crucially, it will also better connect the Marston Vale to the wider region, opening up access to jobs, education, amenities and services across the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.

However, I recognise that this transformation brings concerns, particularly around the impact of works and level crossings, including at Millbrook. The move to a faster, more frequent railway requires changes to ensure safety and reliability, including the closure of certain crossings. I also understand the impact that will have on local communities.

That is why East West Rail has committed to providing alternative routes where closures are proposed, and why feedback from its most recent consultation will be carefully taken into account ahead of the application for a development consent order next year. The company will consider how best to manage traffic and housing impacts, taking on board local views set out in the response to the public consultation, and set out again today by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire.

As the hon. Member rightly argued, the transport requirements of the Marston Vale cannot be considered in isolation from the significant growth opportunities now emerging across the corridor. Those include opportunities for new homes along the East West Rail route, potential new towns in Milton Keynes and Tempsford, and the new Universal resort at Stewartby. The £5 billion investment by Comcast NBCUniversal is a landmark development that is expected to generate nearly £50 billion in economic benefit for the UK and create tens of thousands of jobs. It will also place new and substantial demands on the transport network, with millions of visitors each year and a large workforce drawn predominantly from the surrounding area.

Our response has been to ensure that transport infrastructure both supports this development and, importantly, delivers wider benefits for local communities. As has already been said, the Government have committed £1.3 billion to support the project and its surrounding local and regional infrastructure, including investment in transport improvements. These include the development of Wixams station in collaboration with Network Rail and targeted upgrades to the highway network, including along the A421 corridor. Wixams station, which is on the Midland main line, is anticipated to open before the Universal park opens its doors to visitors.

I thank the Minister for briefly outlining what the £1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be spent on. My residents will be relieved to hear that Wixams station is expected to open in time for Universal.

The Minister also talked about targeted investment in the local road network. When the detail becomes available, will she commit to writing to me with more information about what public money will be spent and where, and what impact the Government expect it to have?

I will ensure that my colleague, the roads Minister, writes to the hon. Gentleman with further information on those plans.

Importantly, we are also working to ensure that the resort is fully integrated into the wider transport system, particularly through East West Rail and its new station at Stewartby. This will allow visitors and employees to access the site by rail from across the region and beyond, reducing pressure on roads and promoting more sustainable travel patterns. We are clear that a development of this scale, alongside other development opportunities and potential new towns at Tempsford and Milton Keynes, must act as a catalyst for a high quality, integrated transport network for the Marston Vale that benefits residents as well as visitors.

Although strategic investment is essential, meeting the transport requirements of the Marston Vale also depends on improving everyday local journeys, and I recognise the concerns that the hon. Member raised on behalf of local residents. That is why the Department is working closely with Bedford borough council, neighbouring authorities and England’s Economic Heartland to develop a transport opportunity plan for the area. This work is focused on delivering a more coherent and connected local network, enhancing local bus services, improving walking and cycling routes, and ensuring better links between communities, stations and key destinations. We recognise that the current provision is not sufficient, particularly for those without access to a car, and this work will bring together local authorities, transport operators and other partners to address the gaps in a co ordinated way.

I am sure the hon. Member welcomes that an integration taskforce has also been established, bringing national expertise to bear on this challenge. Its role is to ensure that all modes—rail, road, bus and active travel—are planned and delivered as part of a single integrated vision that is aligned with the Department’s “Better Connected” strategy.

The hon. Member referred to the importance of M1 junction 13, and that importance is why it is part of a pipeline scheme set out in the third roads investment strategy. I have already committed to ensuring that the roads Minister writes in response to his concerns relating to resilience and the A421.

The Government have committed to supporting England’s Economic Heartland as the subnational transport body to promote integrated transport, helping to ensure that as many communities as possible can benefit from these transformational connections.

In closing, I again thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the constructive approach that he has taken to addressing this issue.

The Minister talked about bringing together local councils—Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council—and England’s Economic Heartland. One of my asks was that we also bring together Universal UK, O&H, which is a significant developer of 5,000 houses in the area, and East West Rail, to ensure that local infrastructure is integrated. Would she consider my proposal—if she cannot answer directly now, she can take it away—that those stakeholders also get around the table? They are developers of significant infrastructure in the area and I think they also need to be around the table.

The hon. Member makes a really good point about the importance of making sure that stakeholders are involved in these conversations, and I will certainly take his proposal away and talk to colleagues in the Department.

The transport requirements of the Marston Vale are clear: better connectivity, greater reliability and a system that supports sustainable growth. Through East West Rail, targeted investment linked to the Universal development and a renewed focus on local transport integration, this Government are committed to meeting those needs. My departmental colleagues and I will be happy to continue engaging with the hon. Member, his constituents and nearby colleagues as we take these important investments forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended.

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of fiscal support for rural pubs.

It is a pleasure to lead this debate on fiscal support for our country’s great rural pubs. Although this debate is about fiscal support, it is really about our heritage. To demonstrate that, I would like to take hon. Members on a pub crawl around my constituency. Meriden and Solihull East has the historical, grade II listed Malt Shovel in Barston, which dates back to the late 15th or early 16th century and is widely regarded as one of the oldest pubs in the borough of Solihull. There is also the Queen’s Head in Meriden, a 17th century coaching inn. We would then move on to Hampton in Arden, where there is the White Lion, another 17th century pub with traditional architecture. I should say at this stage that I do not drink, so I am happy to drive Members if they come.

From Hampton in Arden, we would travel to Catherine de Barnes, where the excellent Boat has a tremendous beer garden for sunny afternoons. In Dorridge, the Railway Inn, right next to the station, often serves hard working commuters after a long day’s work. Dorridge also has the Forest, a 19th century coach house just by the train station, serving tremendous food and drink, with great rooms for weary guests. There is also the Drum and Monkey, my local, which is a famous country pub with a history dating back to the 1860s.

After all that, we would end up in the historical village of Knowle, where I want everyone with me. In the village, there are a number of pubs that we could choose from, but I have selected a couple. The Wilson Arms, now a Toby Carvery, is a 16th century pub with timber frames and excellent Sunday lunches. The Red Lion, right on the high street, has great food and drinks.

I pick Knowle to end, because this weekend we are celebrating the 750th anniversary of the village. I pay tribute to all those who make the village the special place that it is: Visit Knowle, the Knowle Society, the various publicans and, of course, our residents. To them, I say thank you. Community, character and identity, that is what our rural pubs represent. That is why they are worth fighting for, and why I am here today, concerned about the impact of the Government’s policies on our rural pubs.

I will start by talking about the economic importance of pubs and their contribution to the economy, especially in rural areas. There is no doubt that the UK’s pub and brewing sector plays an enormous role in rural constituencies across the UK. Rural pubs provide jobs and huge economic value. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, the pub and brewing sector supports more than 300,000 jobs in rural constituencies in the UK. Combined, rural pubs and breweries contribute almost £11 billion to the economy and generate £7 billion in tax.

In addition, as I have outlined, rural pubs are steeped in history and heritage. They attract tourism from across the country and the world. Tourism is estimated to be responsible for about a third of employment in rural pubs. People come from all over the world to spend time in the great British countryside and enjoy the excellent food and drink that we put out in our great pubs. In all our constituencies, but particularly for Members from rural seats, the influence of pubs in our constituencies is enormous. I am immensely proud of the pubs in Meriden and Solihull East. We have almost 40 local pubs, which support 1,740 jobs. Of that cohort, there are 500 16 to 24-year olds working in the sector, which makes an overall contribution of £61 million to the local economy. In the wider west midlands, there are more than 4,000 rural pubs, which employ 88,000 people and contribute £2.9 billion to the economy.

Aside from the huge economic impact of these pubs, they are also a vital part of the fabric of our rural communities. They provide food, drink and places to stay, and some historical pubs date back centuries, truly making them part of our great and unique British history.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. As everybody knows, I represent the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom. As he says, pubs are not just about food and drink; they are also somewhere for people to go to socialise. They are great for people who are lonely. The Butchers Arms in Carhampton reopened in January, and it now has a library and a shop. I am sure he would agree that is a very good situation to be in.

Bhatti: I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but I think we should have a rule in this House that when a Member says they have the best constituency, they owe everyone a pint. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I could get used to this popularity. The hon. Member is absolutely correct, and I will come to the social value of pubs as a meeting place.

When people think of Britain, they of course think of our iconic landmarks such as Buckingham Palace or Big Ben, but they also think of our red post boxes, our black cabs and our rural pubs. Our truly unique rural pubs are the pillars of our local communities, serving as meeting points for old friends, destinations for wedding receptions and hubs for our community.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that, for many rural locations, the rural pub is the last standing business in the village? It is the post office, the village store, the job club, the parent and child club and the club for the elderly and lonely. I have even seen, through Pub is the Hub, a barber in the lounge of a pub. It cuts people’s hair during the day and serves them drinks in the evening. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the Government impose extra fiscal pressures on pubs, what they lose is probably worth far, far more than the revenue they think they are gaining?

I could not agree more. That is exactly why we are here today. I am really concerned about the core of our communities being hollowed out by Government interventions. For elderly people in particular, a good pub lunch with great drinks and warm food can be a staple of the weekly routine. It is therefore no wonder that two thirds of adults believe that their local pub is vital to combating loneliness and social isolation. On the back of my hon. Friend’s intervention, I gently ask the Minister whether he recognises that losing a rural pub has a huge impact on our rural communities. Where are those people meant to go?

Dr Thomas Thurnell Read from Loughborough University has conducted some fascinating research into the social value of pubs in local communities. The project looked at the impact of pub closures on communities and made it very clear that the loss of a pub, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) said, is so much more than just the loss of a business. Dr Thurnell Read made it clear that the closure of a pub echoes throughout the entire community, impacting friendships, identities and vital local support networks in ways that cannot be captured by data alone.

As traditional community infrastructure such as banks, village halls and post offices also come under pressure, pubs are more important than ever as anchors in our rural communities. For rural areas, some pubs now act as more than just a place to meet and socialise. They have essential services such as micro post offices, prescription drop offs, wi fi hubs and barbers, as my hon. Friend mentioned. They even house part time library shelves.

Research by the Rural Services Network has found that for every £1 invested in the provision of services and activities in the pub, an average of £8.28 of social value is created. It found that the diverse new services offered by pubs in local communities have lasting positive impacts on the overall wellbeing of individuals and their families, as well as on reducing loneliness, improving mental health and giving people greater independence.

Having spoken at great length about the value and importance of rural pubs, I am really concerned about the Government’s intervention and the lack of support for this vital industry. Some of our best pubs are in the Chancellor’s crosshairs. Labour has hit rural pubs with increased taxes and a litany of new burdensome legislation that is killing them off. The pub and brewing sector is among the most highly taxed of any business sector, with around £1 in every £3 spent in the pub going back to HMRC.

One of the most egregious taxes is the Government’s national insurance raid on our businesses. Having spoken with representatives of the UK’s beer and pub sector, there is no doubt that Labour’s rise in national insurance has had a huge impact on rural pubs. Just last week, Simon Emeny, the chairman of Fuller’s, said that pubs are facing “unprecedented” pressure from Labour’s tax rises. Given the nature of pub work, the lowering of the national insurance threshold has had a deep impact on publicans. Pubs are one of the major employers of young people. The sector employs 58% of its people on a part time basis, which means that lowering the threshold has forced pubs to reconsider their hiring practices.

The concerns about taxes that the hon. Member is raising have really affected Jack, the owner of the Ye Olde Poppe Inn in Tatworth, and Buddy, the owner of the Flying Fish. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to lower VAT for pubs?

The hon. Member makes an interesting point. When publicans speak to me about taxes, they talk about their turnover either increasing or staying stable but the costs going up. The Government have to set out what they will do to improve the fiscal landscape for pubs, and for the hospitality industry more broadly.

A lot has been made of Lord Milburn’s report on NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—and the rise in the number of 16 to 24-year olds in that category. Has the Minister considered the impact of these tax rises on pub specific jobs? Some 51% of people working in pubs are under the age of 24, meaning that many are likely to be balancing working in the pub with other part time commitments such as school or university. These new employment costs mean that publicans will think again about hiring staff on a part time basis, driving many people into worklessness. The national insurance rise has had the single most damaging effect on the Saturday job.

In addition to the crippling jobs tax, pubs are also suffering because of stifling increases in business rates. These policies threaten to be a huge—maybe even the final—nail in the coffin of many pubs that are really struggling. Analysis from UKHospitality has found that, by 2027-28, the average pub’s business rates will be £4,500 higher than they are today, rising to an astonishing £12,900 within three years, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief. I asked one of my staff members how much they paid for a pint of beer in one of the pubs in my constituency, and they said a pint of lager came to £7.50. That pub would have to sell an extra 1,720 pints just to offset the cost of those shocking tax increases.

The Conservatives recognise the value of our pubs. We have pledged to scrap business rates for 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses because we recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses keep more of what they earn, allowing them to invest in the community rather than sending it back to central Government. I say to the Minister that Governments do not create growth or jobs; our businesses do. This announcement formed part of our larger campaign to get Britain working again, freeing up money for businesses to hire new people, often younger and always local. It would drive new jobs and economic growth across rural areas of the UK.

Building on that, The Telegraph revealed last month that landlords will be hit with a “nice pub tax” under new guidelines. It found that HMRC has ordered officials to levy higher business rates on pubs that are in attractive locations or based in character properties. That is a complete disaster, and could mean that many pubs are forced—

It is important to note that the article in The Telegraph on the changes for rural pubs was about the fact that we published, with full transparency, the guidance used to value pubs that was signed off under the previous Government. This Government are cutting pubs’ business rates by 15% this year, freezing them for the next two years and reviewing that very guidance. We respect the press, but that article was fake news, and I do not think it should be repeated in this place.

I love the Minister’s passion, but I have not finished yet, and I encourage him—[Interruption.]

Order. Can I make sure that we all understand that lots of Members want to speak? If you start debating with the Minister now, we will lose time. Please respect that, and I encourage you to come to the end of your speech.

I will speed up, Mrs Hobhouse, but I encourage the Minister to wait until I have finished. The litany of regulation, such as in the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the taxes that the Government have raised have had a huge impact. Labour is waging war on our rural pubs. Those publicans can feel it, and we can all see it.

I know that we are all looking forward to England’s first world cup game against Croatia this evening, and along with all Members, I wish them the very best. We have some of the highest alcohol duties on a pint of beer. I do not want to broach the subject of the EU but, while I am not a natural fan of closer alignment, it seems that Europe is in a better place on this, so I ask the Minister to comment on that.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mrs Hobhouse; hopefully you will be Madam Deputy Speaker one day. In conclusion, I say to the Minister that the litany of measures taken by the Government have affected Saturday jobs and had a huge impact on young people. He has shown a lot of passion, but I encourage him to show bravery—and perhaps England fans will chant his name tonight.

I encourage everybody who wants to speak to bob. I intend to call the Front Benchers at about 3.28 pm, which gives everybody else an informal time limit of four minutes. If Members do not stick to that, I will have to put on a formal, and shorter, limit, so please respect each other. I thank Saqib Bhatti for sticking very nicely to his time limit.

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.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this important debate.

I will begin by mentioning two people I represent. Becky runs the Red Lion in Eynsham. She met the Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), at my invitation earlier this year. That followed a question in the House, so some Members present, including the Minister, who is smiling, may already know Becky’s story. Her turnover is up, but her profits have vanished. She said that there is “no living to be made any more”

from her rural pub. Think about what that means: the customers are still spending, yet she is squeezed to the point of asking herself whether to carry on at all.

Donna runs the Oxfordshire Yeoman in Freeland. She has faced the uncontrollable in the last few months: a washout summer, when summer trade is the very thing that a rural pub banks on to survive the winter. Stacked on top of that, she has faced the entirely controllable: a 50p minimum wage rise, soaring energy bills and rising water bills, all landing at once.

When landlords are counting every penny and customers are counting every penny on the same evening, that is not a market finding its level but a trade being hollowed out from underneath. Consider the scale of the loss: 161 pubs closed across England, Scotland and Wales in the first quarter of this year alone, which is more than two a day. Those closures took roughly 2,400 jobs with them. There is a huge difference between losing a pub in a city and losing one in a village. When an urban pub closes, a community loses an option, but when a rural pub closes, a community loses its social space, which almost never comes back. The rural pub sits alongside the church and the village hall as part of the fabric of some of our smaller communities. Such closures represent a loss of identity and cohesion in communities such as mine. We should ask, “Why is the rural pub more exposed?” They tend to have lower footfall, they tend to face higher energy and supply costs, and it is far harder for them to diversify their income. Running costs across hospitality are up around 43% since 2019, and one third of those businesses are operating at a loss.

I would like to turn to what might actually help. First, there is VAT and energy. Becky’s case is one of simple fairness. Why should British hospitality pay roughly double the VAT of comparable European countries? The Liberal Democrats would cut VAT on hospitality by 5% until April 2027 now—not after yet another review—and remove the main renewable levy from energy bills, taking more than £90 a year off the typical bill, funded by a windfall tax on the banks. Taken together, that is £270 back in the pockets of the average household over 18 months, allowing them more opportunity to buy a pint or a meal in their local pub.

Secondly, there is the issue of business rates. In January, the Government discounted 15% of the planned rate hikes for pubs, but Becky’s rateable value was hiked phenomenally before the freeze arrived, locking the damage in. The relief does nothing for shops, restaurants, cafés and the wider high street. Our ask is straightforward: the Government must deliver the full 20p discount promised to all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In the interim, they should keep the 75% relief and freeze the small business multiplier.

Before I end my remarks, I wish to refer briefly to the role of small breweries in our communities, such as Tap Social Movement in Kidlington, Little Ox in Freeland or Twisted Tree in Tusmore. Those small and medium sized enterprises in the community combine a passion for independent brewing with a commitment to creating local jobs. However, in addition to the impact of pub company ties on landlords, the large brewers are locking small breweries out of our village pubs. Fewer than 40% of local pubs are open to small, independent breweries. Will the Minister encourage Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade to consider that barrier to market access? As part of the current pubs code review, will they consider a guest beer arrangement in England and Wales similar to that in Scotland?

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I give big thanks to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for raising this issue. As always, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective on the issues.

I speak for the small villages, the crossroads and the tight knit rural communities where the pub is not merely a commercial business but a vital community hub. It is the village town hall, the local meeting place and the frontline defence against rural isolation; it is a cornerstone of our £2 billion tourism economy. However, those historical institutions are hanging by a thread, suffocating under a mountain of unsustainable operational costs.

We have heard the warnings loud and clear from the industry’s frontline. I pay special tribute to Colin Neill MBE, the chief executive of Hospitality Ulster, who I have met on numerous occasions. All Members in the Chamber have probably met him—I know that the Minister has. Colin has been a tireless champion for our publicans, masterfully making the case both at Stormont and here in Westminster. He has warned the Government in no uncertain terms—forgive me for being graphic, Minister, but we must be factual in presenting this case—that our local hospitality sector is in deep distress as a result of the cumulative impact of soaring energy bills, skyrocketing national insurance contributions and upcoming business rates revaluations. Colin has rightly pointed out that the current tax burden is squeezing the very life out of local employment. Hospitality Ulster data shows that nearly half our operators have been forced to reduce staff numbers. We are looking for economic growth and job creation, but we have lost them—this is a full blown crisis.

Our rural pubs face a unique structural disadvantage compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. In Great Britain, pubs have benefited from various configurations of business rates relief, but publicans in Northern Ireland face the terrifying prospect of massive hikes in their rates bill—a move that Colin Neill has warned would be the “ruination” of our hospitality industry and, by extension, a severe blow to the Northern Ireland economy. Furthermore, our traders are forced to compete on an uneven playing field with the Irish Republic right across the border, where the Government have previously used targeted VAT reductions to protect their hospitality trade, to our disadvantage in Northern Ireland.

We cannot stand idly by and watch our rural heritage be wiped out by fiscal inertia. The sector accounts for four of every five tourism jobs in Northern Ireland, so we cannot deny or ignore that it is critical. If the Department for the Economy is to meet its growth targets—the Minister will want to encourage Northern Ireland to grow and meet them—it needs a thriving hospitality sector to anchor it, so, alongside my DUP colleagues and the Minister back home, I call on the Chancellor and the UK Government to co ordinate directly with the Stormont Executive on delivering a targeted and ringfenced package of fiscal interventions.

We need three things: a reduction in the hospitality VAT rate to lower the structural burden on food and drink operators, energy cost reform to protect rural businesses that do not have the footfall of Belfast establishments, and a reformed, reality based rates system that treats hospitality as an economic driver to be supported, not as a cash cow to be milked until it is dead, which is what I see happening.

The hospitality sector is asking for the chance to survive and grow, and I echo that sentiment. I ask the Government to give our publicans the breathing room that they deserve—especially for rural pubs that cannot work on economies of scale—and to deliver the fiscal support that rural economies desperately need, before the lights go out for good in rural pubs. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East for bringing this issue to the Chamber. I hope that the Minister can give us the answers that we desperately need.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing such an important debate. I also thank Rajan Sehmi from my office for his support in preparing my notes.

We all know how much pressure rural pubs are facing, but I will highlight some of the many positive stories that my constituents have told me about their impact on our community. I recently met Bob from Kings Langley, whose young daughter Abbie is living with stage 4 cancer and is in a wheelchair and on 24-hour oxygen following a double lung transplant. Bob told me about Debbie and Ady, the landlords of the Unicorn in Abbots Langley, who have gone above and beyond to support Abbie and her family and ensure that the Unicorn remains a safe and welcoming place for her.

The Unicorn has organised events specifically for Abbie, including a “sip and paint” party at which 12 of her friends painted a portrait that now hangs proudly in their family home. Knowing that Abbie is a Robbie Williams fan, the Unicorn arranged a tribute act to perform. Unfortunately, Abbie had to go into hospital that day, but Debbie was able to stream it for Abbie on a video call. When Bob later organised a skydive in support of the Hospice of St Francis, which cares for Abbie and of which I am proud to be a patron, the Unicorn hosted a fundraising event that raised more than £1,400 for the hospice. Debbie has shown us that rural pubs are so often a source of friendship, support and hope for families facing the most difficult circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point about the wonderful charitable work that many of our rural pubs do. I would like to place on record my gratitude to the Black Lion in my constituency and also the Crossings Inn. The Black Lion does wonderful charity work, and the Crossings is the hub whenever there is a power cut in that particular area of Cumbria, which is sadly quite prone to them. On that point, I congratulate the Countryside Alliance on its “Rural Oscars”—both the Crossings and the Black Lion were northern finalists, and I am delighted to say that the Black Lion, as the winning pub for the north, is through to the finals. Will the hon. Gentleman share my congratulations to the Black Lion and all the other finalists on the excellent work that they do, and wish them the best of luck in the “Rural Oscars”?

It is my absolute pleasure to do so—to be a bit cheeky, I think some of the blackouts might come a bit more frequently with this Government’s policy on energy prices.

More widely across South West Hertfordshire, another constituent from South Oxhey told me about the Dick Whittington, which hosts free sandwiches on Wednesdays, a weekly OAP afternoon and a family Easter egg hunt. Other constituents in Kings Langley praised Pete, the landlord of the Saracen’s Head, and his staff for always being community focused and creating a welcoming atmosphere. Michelle told me about the Coach & Horses in Rickmansworth: for decades, the pub has put on a complimentary lunch for the Watford Mencap pancake race that she organises and that I have had the honour to open for several years now, raising vital funds for those with learning disabilities.

I have had the privilege of visiting those pubs in my pubs tour last year and hearing directly from publicans across South West Hertfordshire, but it was moving to hear from constituents about their favourite pubs. Some of the top key words mentioned were, “staff”, “atmosphere”, “community”, “welcoming”, “local” and “family”, but specifically “community.”

It is probably worth mentioning what is sold in the pubs. Although we speak about beer a lot, a third of drinks sold in hospitality are spirits. Many people prefer gin and tonic to a pint. Pubs and the distilleries that supply them are suffering from excise duty increases of 17% in the last three years.

I recently met Kate Nicholls from UKHospitality, whom many in this Chamber will know. She said that pubs are choosing to close on quieter days and operate shorter hours, making it more difficult to maintain exactly that community that we have been speaking about in this debate, where the pubs operate as the beating heart of our villages.

In conclusion, the Conservatives would introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for hospitality, retail and leisure, capped at £110,000 per business, funded through £47 billion of savings by cutting the ever increasing welfare bill and the civil service. Publicans in South West Hertfordshire have been telling me that this Government are wringing pubs for cash instead of treating them as places we need to protect. That is especially true in our rural communities, in which the word “community” so often depends on the pub.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important and timely debate. I want to put on record that I am an officer of the all party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism.

In my constituency, pubs are a central part of our local economy and job creation. The rural pub is the beating heart of village life. Domestic and international tourists alike flock to our array of historical pubs and alehouses to drink a crisp pint in a picturesque setting, and it goes without saying that we locals like them very much too. I have many such pubs in my constituency—too many to name—all fantastic places to eat, drink and socialise.

That reality is threatened, however, by the monumental challenges faced by all hospitality businesses in recent years. The local pub, once a staple of every town and village, is now an endangered species. In Stratford on Avon treasured, long standing pubs are on the brink of closing. In rural, often isolated areas, the village pub is the only community infrastructure still standing after the school, the post office and the local shop have all closed. It is where quiz nights and coffee mornings are held, and where social life happens. Despite their social and economic value to the community, our rural pubs are firefighting on all fronts.

One such pub is the Golden Cross in Ardens Grafton, a cherished 18th century, family run pub situated in the heart of the pretty south Warwickshire countryside, within easy reach of the town of Stratford upon Avon, and with views of the Vale of Evesham and the Cotswolds. A more perfect setting for a profitable pub could not be imagined but, almost with the feeling of inevitability, it closed its doors for the very last time earlier this month. That has been a heartbreaking decision for the owners, who did everything they could to avoid closure; but with rising operating costs, increased wage bills, higher national insurance contributions, escalating energy costs and supplier price increases, they simply had no other choice but to say goodbye to the business that supported the livelihoods of their families and community life.

Elsewhere in my constituency it was only through the intervention of local residents and of the charity Plunkett UK that the Fox at Loxley was saved from the same fate and became a community owned pub. When will the Government intervene to save our pubs and our wider hospitality industry? The Government’s policies should be providing the platform for our pubs and hospitality businesses to thrive. The emergency pub relief has been eaten up by cuts in relief and steep increases in rateable values from April 2026. Business rates must be reviewed and made fairer.

For a Government who claim that their main objective is economic growth, it boggles the mind that they thought the way to achieve that was to increase employer national insurance contributions—a measure that disproportionately impacts hospitality, raising costs for part time staff and hitting small and medium sized businesses the hardest. That is why I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been calling on the Government to exempt hospitality small and medium sized enterprises from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to cut the VAT on hospitality businesses by 5%.

In other countries of Europe, the hospitality sector has 10% VAT, which means that it can grow and employ more people. Rural pubs are among the providers of first jobs for our young generations, forming the foundation of a working life where they learn so many skills each day.

I do not know what evidence the Government need to see before they believe that our pubs are at crisis point and that another U turn is necessary. I hope that the Minister will take the Golden Cross in my constituency as firm evidence that the current situation is entirely unsustainable for our pubs and that Government intervention is needed now to save our pubs from extinction.

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this timely and important debate.

Pubs are not just places to grab a drink, as anyone who has grown up in a rural town or village knows. They are where we meet our neighbours, where people check in on us when we are having a rough time, and where a young person gets their first job and learns how to show up for work. They are woven into the fabric of this country, so when I say that the pressure on rural pubs is serious, I do not mean it lightly.

A constituent whose family runs a rural pub recently got in touch to tell me that they are on the precipice when it comes to staying afloat as a business. They are not complaining about thin margins or a bad few months; they are talking about whether they have a future at all. Rising costs, business rates, national insurance and wages—it is coming from every direction at once.

Viv has run the Lansdown Arms on Station Street in Lewes for 23 years. A few months back I invited her to Parliament to meet the Hospitality Minister, the Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden). Viv told us straight out that she does not know how much longer she can keep her business going. Her rateable value has gone up by £22,250, meaning roughly an additional £1,600 that she has to find every month. So many pubs in my constituency of Lewes are in similar positions. Those crippling policies are the difference between keeping staff on or cutting their hours, and between fixing the kitchen or leaving it and hoping for the best.

We all know that, once a rural pub closes, it almost never comes back. In 2020 there were 75 pubs in my constituency; that number was down from 95 in 2011, or a 21% decrease in under 10 years. At that rate, 50 years from now there will be no pubs at all left in Lewes constituency. We are seeing that situation play out in the village of Plumpton right now. Local people are trying to buy the Fountain Inn themselves. Stuart Wallis and the Fountain Inn Community Benefit Society have pulled together nearly £300,000 in pledges. Her Majesty the Queen, who grew up nearby, has thrown her support behind the campaign—but, honestly, should people have to crowdfund to save one of the last pubs in their area? That should not be where we are.

There are bright spots; the Steamworks at Glynde station is a great example. It is in an old station building, which I was proud to play a very small part in turning into a proper local hub as well as a pub, and it shows what is possible when people are given a bit of support and a bit of breathing room. Today I will meet with the famous Harvey’s Brewery, which is based in the heart of my constituency, in the town of Lewes. It is a family brewery that has been part of our county of Sussex for generations, quietly underpinning pubs, jobs and local identity in a way that is rarely talked about. From the Long Man Inn in Wilmington just down the road to the Eight Bells in Jevington, which won best pub in Sussex in the 2026 BRAVO—Brighton Restaurant Awards Vote Online—awards, the overall picture is worrying, and the Government need to take it seriously.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for an emergency VAT cut for hospitality—pubs, restaurants and venues—until April 2027. On business rates, the promised reform has not worked for a lot of pubs. In some cases it has made things worse. We need proper relief to be maintained for retail and hospitality while a genuinely fair system is designed, not a rushed patch that leaves pubs worse off than before. On national insurance, we cannot automate a pub. We cannot replace the person behind the bar, the chef out the back, or the young person doing their first shift on a Friday night with an app or a machine. Hospitality is people powered, and the rise in employer national insurance has landed hardest on exactly the kind of small local businesses that deserve support, not another squeeze. Pubs are also often stuck in an expensive tie that does not give them the flexibility to be competitive in the modern market.

I am not asking for anything complicated. I am asking the Government to listen—to Viv at the Lansdown Arms and to the locals, and indeed Her Majesty the Queen, trying to save the Fountain Inn in Plumpton. These places have served their communities for generations. It is time the Government returned the favour.

May I say what a pleasure it is to contribute to this debate under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse? I am reminded of my youth in Bath, where I first attended pubs such as the Assembly Inn—but, since the subject of today’s debate is rural pubs, I shall move quickly to discussing my constituency. I want to refer in my contribution to Chickpea Group, which was founded just seven years ago by a brother and sister team, local people, with one of their school friends. They have gone from selling a few pizzas in the back of a pub in Wilton in my constituency to having now more than a dozen establishments across Hampshire, Dorset and south Wiltshire. I spoke to Jordan Davids this morning to get to the heart of what she feels about the challenges that exist in that thriving business, and she said to me that essentially it has grown and prospered because of the support of locals and despite some of the changes made in recent times.

As a former Treasury Minister, I empathise with the significant challenges involved in balancing the books. I sat in that position in years past, when lots of easy solutions were offered, with sincerity, but I recognise that sometimes there is a gap relating to the complexity in delivering and the reality on the ground. Chickpea Group has grown two to three new venues every year, and it has told me that the issue is the combination of a number of factors.

In my experience, it is very difficult for Treasury officials to evaluate the combined impact of increases in the national living wage made in one domain and one set of decision making, the threshold changes and rate increases for national insurance, then the behavioural effects of employment rights and then the ongoing challenges of energy costs, before we get into the incredibly complicated issue of business rates. However, that is the reality for the person on the ground, running one of the establishments in my constituency—the Grosvenor Arms, the Pembroke Arms, the Queen’s Head, the Silver Plough and the establishments in the market square in Salisbury; they have to deal with all those things together.

The Minister will, no doubt very professionally and skilfully, explain the end of the reliefs and what the Government have put in, with a new lower multiplier, but he must also come to terms with the fact that it is in the fusion of all those factors that the individual business owner is finding great difficulty at the moment. I stand here to applaud the success of Ethan and Jordan Davids and their original business partner Tommy Tullis in moving forward through difficult times. I acknowledge that it was not all great under the previous Government, either; but we have got to the point at which we need a rational analysis of all the factors that are making life difficult for rural businesses. Colleagues have mentioned all the other factors particular to a rural location. It needs a thoughtful intervention from the Government to look at the behavioural effects and honestly deal with a problem that is not going away and is, my constituents tell me, very severe for the future prospects of their business and others like it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing this debate. Ely and East Cambridgeshire is a very rural area, and in many of my villages the pub is the only place left for local people to gather, meet and socialise. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, we have lost or are at risk of losing 609 pubs since January this year, and 60 of those are definitely lost forever because they have been demolished or converted.

My village of Reach nearly lost its pub back in 1999. The villagers bought it, and it is now run as a fully commercial business on a long lease, with the freehold belonging to the parish council. It sits at one end of Devil’s Dyke, so it has been renamed the Dyke’s End. It remains a very successful and popular pub.

I regularly meet my publican network and the local CAMRA group, and they tell me about what pubs do to support community events and social interaction, combat loneliness and help with mental health, as well as providing young people with their first job and training them in communication and hospitality skills. But they are really struggling financially. National insurance, business rates and energy costs come up over and over again, which is why the Lib Dems are calling for a 5% cut on VAT for pubs, action to reduce their energy costs and the replacement of business rates.

All of our communities and publicans deserve better support, but I would like to highlight two in my constituency. The Carpenters Arms in Soham was voted CAMRA’s rural pub of the year in 2024. It has an amazing array of real ales, a beautiful garden out the back and community events. It is a real part of that market town in my constituency. More recently, the Black Horse in Rampton has been voted CAMRA’s East Anglia cider pub of the year 2026. It has a whole wall full of different ciders. Hon. Members would have to visit regularly to try them all. One of them is Foxhay cider, which is made in Rampton using local apples, so the pub supports small local businesses as well.

As we have heard, these small, rural pubs are also supporting the wonderful micro and small breweries, which need people who can take small amounts and get through it quickly before it goes off, as it has a shorter life than commercial beers.

Our pubs really are the hubs of our communities, but if we continue to over tax them, we will continue to lose them, with all the impact that will have on our local communities. Will the Minister commit to asking the Government to reduce those taxes and allow our pubs to thrive?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this debate.

The Lamb Inn in Iron Acton was built in 1690. It is believed that Mary and William of Orange stayed there. It is a real community pub that has been run by Tracey and Brendan Byrne for the last 20 years, but the Byrnes tell me they have a long list of burdens bearing down on them, including employer national insurance contributions, business rates, VAT and alcohol duty, all of which are under the direct control of this Government.

That is the reality facing rural pubs across Thornbury and Yate, and indeed the country. These are not simply places to drink; they are community anchors, spaces for the lonely, meeting points for neighbours and outlets for local breweries and farmers. Pubs in villages and hamlets without the footfall that town centre pubs enjoy, which often have higher energy costs, cannot absorb pressure the way larger operators might. When they close, nothing replaces them—the loss is permanent.

Greg and James at the Swan at Nibley have also been hit by National Highways closing a road for three years. They are looking forward to trade improving from this weekend, when the closure ends, but they say that a cut in VAT for hospitality would make a big difference to them and all pubs in our area.

The employer national insurance rises have forced publicans to make brutal choices about staffing. Those hit hardest are young people looking for their first job—the kind of formative, confidence building experience that hospitality provides. Previously, pubs were able to employ 10 to 15 young people, working a few hours a week; now they struggle to employ three. That is a dozen NEETs for every pub lost, in more than one way.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She is right to highlight the number of NEETs in this country. We probably should not call them NEETs, because so many of them are trying to find employment, education or training. They want to cut their teeth on the opportunities that hospitality venues such as rural pubs provide. Does she agree that, if we can take some pressure off those rural pubs, they will be more than willing, ready and able to bring young people into their businesses, to give them the skills to go on and do other things? Right now, with the pressure that they face from all angles, the owners end up doing all the work themselves.

I agree. The Swan has been taking on apprentices, but many pubs are unable to do so because of the challenges. There is often a lack of opportunities in our villages and, with transport issues, it can be difficult to travel to places where they can be found.

On business rates, Liberal Democrats have consistently called for a fair and more proportionate system. The Government’s partial climbdown—a 15% reduction on a planned hike, after sustained pressure from the House—was welcome but it went nowhere near far enough.

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine has beautiful countryside pubs but they are struggling. Pub owners have told me that this year is worse than the covid years. They face closure, despite being the only place for communities to meet in rural areas, as in many others. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must overhaul the entire business rate system to give pubs the support they need to thrive, not just barely survive?

I absolutely agree. I could also highlight many other anomalies that affect the wider hospitality and attraction industry.

At the Horseshoe in Chipping Sodbury, I met Matthew Lewis of the Independent Pub Alliance. The ask from the pub trade is not complicated: stability, fairness and a Government who understand that these businesses are part of the community infrastructure. I urge the Minister to meet the alliance to better understand its ask, and I would be delighted to bring Matthew to meet him. My constituents value their rural pubs, as do I and my party. Will the Government show that they do, too?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this valuable debate.

Rural pubs and breweries across the country are suffering under an excessive tax burden that is stifling investment and employment opportunities. Melksham and Devizes is home to Wadworth, a fantastic local company, which has been brewing beer in Devizes since 1875. In a recent meeting with Toby, Wadworth’s managing director, the severity of the financial situation facing the hospitality industry was made clear. The reduction of the threshold for employer national insurance contributions will cost £750,000 a year across the business, which includes 129 tenanted pubs.

Yesterday, my team spoke to the landlady of one such pub, Sarah of the Three Magpies in Seend, who said that, because of the increase in the minimum wage, rising national insurance contributions and higher training costs, she had to cut back on the number of local youngsters that the pub employs during the busy summer season. To put that in perspective, last year there were 20 members of staff at the Three Magpies over the summer; this year there will be just nine. That is 11 young people missing out on an invaluable opportunity to gain the skills, knowledge and experience to set them up for future careers.

We all saw the Milburn review’s stark warning that one in six young people could be classed as NEET within five years if no action is taken. We urgently need to review the impact of the burden on the hospitality industry on youth employment and ensure that we are not taxing future generations out of employment opportunities.

In addition to the national insurance challenges, UK alcohol duties are the second highest in Europe, pushing up prices for consumers and reducing profit margins for landlords. The Treasury’s current trajectory will suffocate Britain’s proud pub culture, with more choosing to purchase alcohol from the supermarket and drink it at home. That poses increased health risks, because at home consumption lacks the natural boundaries of a pub setting.

At a time when the cost of utilities has skyrocketed, the Government should surely be doing far more to support the UK hospitality industry, not adding to its woes. Both Toby and Sarah told us that one of the simplest ways to support our pubs would be a VAT reduction for the industry. It would free up capital to invest in either new staff or the business itself. Similarly, duty on alcohol should be reviewed, with the duty paid on a UK pint amounting to 10 times the amount paid in Germany.

We have to recognise the important role that rural pubs play. Socially, they are the beating heart of villages and help to regulate consumption, keeping evenings merry. Economically, they can be engines of growth for rural communities, providing a springboard into employment for many young people and investing in the local area. It is time the Treasury recognised that fact and significantly increased its offering of support to ensure that we can all continue to enjoy a pint down the local.

How about that for timekeeping? I thank every Member for staying so disciplined within the time limit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse.

I thank the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this important debate and I thank all my colleagues who gave such excellent speeches, which set out not only how much they love their pubs, but the struggles that they face. That is the important thing. I do not want to talk about how much those pubs matter to our communities or how much fun I have had in pubs over the years, because the thing that we must focus on is the big screaming problem. We need to take it seriously. Warm words go only so far right now. We have a huge problem that is hitting pubs every day, and we have to do something about it.

I will set out how big the problem is. In the first half of last year, more than 200 pubs closed in six months. That is eight a week. A year on, things are even worse. The British Beer and Pub Association said that 161 pubs closed in the first three months of this year alone in England, Scotland and Wales. That is about 2,400 jobs. Those in rural and coastal constituencies have been among the hardest hit, and according to UKHospitality, running costs for pubs have risen by an estimated 43% since 2019. One third of hospitality businesses are operating at a loss, six in 10 have cut jobs and 63% have reduced staff hours. That is bad.

Anyone knows that pubs are much more expensive than they used to be. That is hurting customers, as fewer people can afford an evening out. When a plate of fish and chips costs 15 quid, that is hardly surprising. It is obviously not because pubs are raking it in. Sadly, quite the opposite is true. Pubs are facing many of the same pressures that are hammering small local businesses across the board: spiralling food prices, high rents, sharp business rate increases, soaring energy bills, increased employer national insurance contributions and rising wages. As an entrepreneur who spent 24 years building a business, the overall situation scares the daylights out of me. I am not envious of them in that position.

I am grateful to Nick at the Old Crown in Faringdon and Tommy and Mike at the Three Horseshoes in Witney, who sat me down and talked through just how tough it is to run these businesses. The Minister is smiling at me because he is a Witney boy, so he understands.

I have spent some time in the Three Horseshoes!

Well, there you are. It is a wonderful pub, and we need to keep it open.

This is all doubly tough for rural pubs. City pubs have a much larger catchment of potential customers who are within walking distance and not car dependent, which matters with drink driving. Rural pubs are likely to rely on oil, liquefied petroleum gas or electric heating rather than the gas grid, and they have a small labour pool from which to hire. On top of all those hurdles, pubs in the countryside are much more significant to their communities, as they are typically the only pub in the village and a key hub in village life, as so many Members have pointed out.

In west Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse, we have fought really hard to enforce making pubs assets of community value, so that everyone understands that they cannot make a quick buck from buying a pub, turning it into a house and selling it—the cost to the community is far too great. But being a community asset alone does not pay the bills. We have to make those pubs into survivable businesses.

The changes announced in last year’s autumn Budget—the business rates revaluation and the removal of reductions that dated from the covid pandemic—led to extreme distress for publicans. While I recognise that the Government have subsequently acknowledged the crisis facing Britain’s pubs, the package of support that they announced at the start of the year, including the 15% cut to pubs’ business rates bills from April and a two year real terms freeze, was only a partial U turn, and it will still leave many pubs facing a business rates increase on top of the other cost pressures that I have listed.

From April 2026, the Horse and Groom in East Ashling in my constituency saw its business rates rise from £11,000 a year to £32,000 a year. That is an additional £22,000 that it has to find out of nowhere. It is a rural business and it is busy—when someone visits the pub, it is full, thriving and buzzing—but ironically, it does not matter if more people come through the door, because the money is leaving just as quickly due to all the additional costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why those businesses need the Government to step in and support them? It is not about being busy. These are not failing businesses; they are thriving businesses that cannot make the books add up at the moment.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Business rates feel so unjust—so arbitrary and out of control, and appeals are virtually impossible. We all beg the Minister to put doing something about that at the top of his list, because they are so grossly unfair and really rip the heart out of running a business.

We need to pick those problems apart and work out what can be done. As announced just an hour ago by our mighty Lib Dem leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), getting back inside the EU’s single market would help in a number of ways. Food costs would go down if we were back inside the single market, both in pubs and on supermarket shelves. That matters: it would allow food to be sold for less, making pubs more affordable and getting more people through the door. It would also help with recruitment, as we would not need to spend thousands and waste months on visas for key staff, many of whom are from outside the UK.

Being back inside the European single market for electricity would reduce energy bills, because we would be able to buy and sell electricity when the UK or the EU had surplus energy. I am not pretending that the move would solve everything, but those outcomes would materially help. However, there are plenty more problems that we would still need to deal with.

Does the hon. Gentlemen recognise that if the level of alcohol duty is one of the big obstacles facing rural pubs, what we need to be able to do is widen the differential in the duty rates paid on beer sold on draught in pubs or licensed premises compared with bottles and cans drunk at home alone? That would be impossible if we rejoined the European Union. [Interruption.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) points out from a sedentary position, I am not suggesting that we rejoin the European Union.

Employer national insurance contributions are the single biggest nightmare. It is a tax before getting out of bed, before generating any revenue and before making any profit. It is a huge mistake by Labour, and a direct result of Labour Members straitjacketing themselves into foolish promises about not touching any of the big three taxes. It needs to be unwound.

Equally, we have strongly opposed the Government’s changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and we have called on them to reverse the tax rise in full. We are also calling for a consultation on a new NICs band of £5,000 to £9,100, with a lower rate to better support part time workers, on whom the hospitality industry heavily relies. I have already covered business rates, so I will not go into them further.

On energy costs, the crisis in Iran has obviously made many costs, not least fuel prices, worse rather than better in the last few months. That is causing enormous pain. We would remove the main renewables levy from household energy bills, putting £270 back into people’s pockets over 18 months. That would be funded by a new windfall tax on big commercial banks, targeting the windfall interest payments they receive from the quantitative easing related reserves they hold at the Bank of England.

At the weekend, I visited an excellent rural pub in my constituency—the Olive Tree in Sutton Green—and met the owner, Nigel, and his staff. They are doing a great job running a pub in very difficult times. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government want to reset their relationship with rural pubs and help them, they should consider cutting beer duty or increasing the draught discount?

Absolutely.

I will finish by saying that we need to look in the round at the massive cost pressures and changing consumer habits, from lower footfall to falling discretionary spending power, which combine to put pressure on pubs. A one off package of business rates support is one thing, but we need to get back into the single market, fix NICs, reform business rates properly, fix energy costs and give pubs and hospitality a 5% VAT break. If we do not do those things, pubs in my constituency—the land of your birth, Minister —will keep going bust. We want to avoid that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this timely and important debate. I will certainly take him up on that pub crawl offer in the recess. It is fitting that this debate takes place on the day of the British Beer and Pub Association’s annual reception, when we will have the opportunity to speak directly to people in the sector and, of course, about the small matter of the England game later.

The BBPA has set out the challenges. For every £3 spent in a pub, £1 goes straight to the Exchequer. As hon. Members have said, rural pubs are at the heart of our villages as community hubs and gathering places. They play an important role in charity, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) set out. That is certainly the case in my constituency, where more than 5,000 jobs are supported by the pubs and hospitality sector. Sadly, thanks to the Chancellor’s choices, rural pubs face ever growing pressures. When there are economic headwinds, although some are obviously beyond the Government’s control, the Government should act where they can to support our pubs.

That is what the previous Government did when we introduced a new strength based duty system, including two new reliefs: draught beer duty relief, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) campaigned avidly, and small producer relief. Our support went further. We froze alcohol duty rates in 2023, which we extended in 2024. We also provided a 75% business rates relief scheme for pubs and hospitality businesses, which was a lifeline for thousands of rural pubs that would otherwise have faced higher bills they could not meet.

That record stands in stark contrast to this Government’s. Since the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, the Government have added layer upon layer of costs to a sector that operates on tight margins, where a single bad month can put a rural pub out of business. One of the Chancellor’s first decisions on business rates was to halve that 75% relief, increasing the average pub’s business rates bill from £4,000 to £9,500.

Next came the removal of the 40% relief, and then the revaluation. Some pubs are now seeing their rateable value double or triple, with the BBPA warning that 5,000 of the smallest pubs are now facing business rates for the first time. What was the Government’s response? A partial U turn of a 15% relief after a significant backlash. However, only 6% of hospitality and leisure businesses will benefit, and even then, the average pub will see its rates increase by £5,300 under Labour.

Our commitment is different. The Conservatives would scrap business rates entirely for pubs up to the £110,000 cap, benefiting 250,000 businesses overall. Our cheap energy plan would reduce costs, particularly for rural pubs, and we would not proceed with the regulatory costs in the unemployment Bill, which the Government seem so keen on. Does the Minister really believe that a 15% reduction on a hike is sufficient to help these rural pubs?

Sadly, business rates are only the start. The Government also cut the employer national insurance threshold to £5,000 and hiked the rate to 15%. I know from conversations with landlords in small rural pubs employing four or five people that the extra cost is not a rounding error; it means fewer people employed in those pubs. In February, alcohol duty was increased by the retail prices index—a £400 million cost to the sector, passed on to consumers—which the chief executive of UKHospitality said would be the final straw for some pubs.

Then there is extended producer responsibility. The BBPA has warned that the pub sector will face a hit of about £50 million because glass bottles sold in venues will be considered household waste, even though pubs already pay to have their waste commercially recycled. What is the Minister’s response to that double charging and to the rules that do not reflect how glass bottles in pubs are collected by the vast majority of premises? Taken together, those additional costs create the cumulative impact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) referred to, which is what matters.

Rural communities feel pub closures differently. A pub closing in a city can be replaced by one around the corner, but when a pub closes in a Norfolk village, it can be lost forever. I am grateful that the Rose and Crown in Harpley, which closed, has been reopened, but that is one positive story. There are other, less positive ones: in the first quarter of this year, 161 pubs closed—a 26% increase on the year before—and we are now on track for 500 pubs to close in the rest of this year.

A survey of 20,000 hospitality businesses—the people taking the risks; the people employing other people—tells a story: 64% plan to cut jobs and 42% will reduce their trading hours. UKHospitality and the BBPA said it together: “Hospitality’s tax burden….is suffocating the sector…more lost jobs, less investment and business closures.”

Who is paying the heaviest price? It is young people. Youth unemployment is now at 16%. For generations, a job at the local was their first job—the first foot on the ladder.

As Conservatives, we want to see those opportunities given to young people who are out of work, instead of us rejoining the single market and importing people to come and take those jobs. The Government are kicking that ladder away. National insurance hikes, business rates hikes, duty rises, EPR fees, above inflation wage rises and a potential lowering of the drink drive limit, which particularly affects rural pubs—I could go on. With this Buckaroo effect, the Government are presiding over the accelerated loss of a British institution, which is felt particularly acutely in our rural communities.

As a first step, I urge the Minister to join the all party parliamentary beer group—he will get the same fine tie that I am wearing if he does—where he will hear about these concerns. He will hear how rising costs mean that a third of venues are running at a loss and how the Government need to change course. When we were in government, we proved that targeted support works. Rather than load on more costs, the Government should support pubs with the decisive fiscal relief that the Conservatives have committed to.

Before I call the Minister, I remind him to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the Member in charge to wind up.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. It is some of the most impressive I have seen in Westminster Hall, as you managed to keep this unruly lot to time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) for securing this debate and for his contribution on the importance of rural pubs.

I represent an urban seat here in London—it is at about midday on the clock from central London—but it has a plentiful supply of green belt, and I have 12 farms in my constituency, even though it is within Greater London. So I have some understanding of the situation for rural communities. I also grew up in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), as was mentioned earlier. I spend every Christmas eve doing carols at the Three Horseshoes, so the owners have to look out for me this year. It is a fantastic pub. We want to make sure that pubs like that, and pubs in all the constituencies mentioned today, have the support they need.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for mentioning the pubs in his constituency, including the Golden Cross—I hope that England can get a golden cross in this evening and that we can score some goals. [Interruption.] Thank you, one and all. I thank all Members for their contributions and for sharing the stories of the businesses in their constituencies. Pubs are so important to so many communities, particularly rural communities. The Government have rural rates relief for pubs that are the only pub in villages with populations of 3,000 or less. There are a couple of thousand businesses across the country that make use of the rural rate relief scheme, which covers shops as well. I encourage all Members to make sure that local businesses are aware of that scheme, which was also in place under the previous Government. I know that it is welcomed by those businesses that use it.

I will deal with the topics that were raised in turn. We are reforming the business rates system and have implemented permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, such as pubs. That is funded by a high value multiplier on the 1% of the most expensive properties, which includes large distribution warehouses used by online giants. That change will mean that the tax rate paid by the smallest businesses on the high street will have a wedge of a third compared with the tax rate paid by the online giants. That is a permanent change, not a temporary relief that will jump up and down. Those changes are worth nearly £1 billion a year for the 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses that are the lifeblood of our high streets.

Members, particularly Liberal Democrats, talked about the need for a significant change to the way that pubs are valued. As I mentioned, this Government are the first in a very long time to commission an independent review of how pubs and hotels are valued for business rates purposes. In the weeks after the Budget, we heard very clearly from businesses that they had concerns about the opaqueness of the methodology. Some who spoke about business rates for pubs mentioned the feeling of running to stand still, which Members mentioned: their turnover goes up, but then their business rates bill goes up, too. We have been clear that, as was set out in law in the 1980s, it is right for business rates to reflect rents, and we will not separate out pubs entirely. The question is: how can we best value pubs and communicate their value through the Valuation Office Agency to individual ratepayers?

I am sure that one of the messages the Minister will have heard from pub owners is that the unique way that pubs are valued for business rates—through an assessment of their fair maintainable trade—means that if they invest in their own business, one of the first things that happens is they face a higher bill, long before they have started to repay the money that they invested. Will the Minister consider addressing that with a business rates holiday to provide space for businesses to recoup some of their investment before it is taken off them in business rates?

I love an intervention like that one. We are looking at exactly that. Last year, in a call for evidence on how we can improve the business rate system to support investment, we set out that we would look at improvement relief. At the moment, it does give a relief if a business invests, but only for a short time. That is under active review as a result of the call for evidence, where we heard that businesses were interested in the extent to which changes to improvement relief could support them and their investment decisions. I would happily receive further representations on that from Members.

Further to the comments from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the Minister will be aware of the way in which the pub industry is dominated by major pub companies, which often own tied pubs. That has a major bearing on the leasable value of many of these properties. Many publicans in my area tell me that that drives up their rates, even though they do not have full control over that, just as they do not have full control over their purchasing. Is the Minister working with the Department for Business and Trade to review that, and is he talking to the Competition and Markets Authority to review whether the pubco structure in our country is fit for purpose?

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue; it is one that publicans in my constituency have raised with me as their MP. Of course, there are benefits to having a link with a major supplier, and I understand why many publicans choose that route, but it is clear that there are significant challenges, too. DBT has looked at this, and I am sure that conversations are ongoing with the Under Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), about what reforms could be made. This is not my policy brief, so I do not want to speak too far out of turn, but I totally understand the issue. I will raise it personally with my hon. Friend. I have done so in the past, after being asked to by my constituents.

On a related point, guest beers and access to the bar for guest beers in tied pubs was mentioned. DBT has met the parties involved in the beer market access review to hear their evidence directly, and it is giving due consideration to all the evidence, along with input from competition policy experts. This is under active review by the Government, and we are committed to making sure that we can have a diverse and competitive beer market. On a personal level, I hope that the Government can look really closely at this so that we can improve competition and choice, but it is being led by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax.

As has been mentioned, in January this year we went further to support pubs, with a further 15% off their business rates bills and a real terms freeze in business rates for pubs in the next two years of this revaluation period. That support is worth £1,650 for the average pub this year. It means that three quarters of pubs are seeing their bills either fall or stay flat this year and, as a sector, pubs will pay 8% less in business rates in 2029 than before the revaluation took effect.

Moving on from business rates, the Government recognise that pubs often serve as crucial community assets, particularly in rural communities, as the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East and many others have mentioned. They support local economies and communities, provide spaces for gatherings, support those in need and foster a great sense of local pride.

The circumstances around VAT in Northern Ireland, and reduced VAT across the border, are peculiar and particular to us compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Has the Minister had chance to speak to Colin Neill, the chief executive of Hospitality Ulster, to ascertain some of the things that he feels might be a way forward? If so, have there been discussions not only with him but with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive?

I have not managed to have that conversation, but the hon. Member is very welcome to write to me, and I am happy to consider those representations. Of course, I have heard calls from Members to cut VAT for hospitality, and I am aware that there is a campaign on that matter. I just say that cutting VAT for hospitality from 20% to 10% would cost £11 billion. A range of policy ideas have been raised, all of which involve cutting tax. The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) was right to acknowledge that there are important fiscal considerations for the Government. It is important that we manage the public finances and bring down Government borrowing, and we are forecast to have the fastest reduction in Government borrowing of any G7 economy, with our deficit falling below the G7 average for the first time in a very long time. Of course, I will listen to the representations made and the asks from campaigners, but I caution that we have to ensure that we have sufficient revenue to fund our public services in a sustainable way.

The Minister will acknowledge the distinct combined effect of a whole range of Government decisions on the rural pubs sector. While I acknowledge the need for fiscal responsibility, what work has he done to look at the net effect of all Government decisions, and at why a distinct solution is needed for this particular sector?

We consider our policies in the round, on a sector by sector basis, as well as looking at measures tax by tax. The right hon. Gentleman is right that, as politicians in the Treasury, it is important for us to push the civil servants to make sure that we look not just at individual measures in silos, but at them in the round.

There are some cross cutting measures that particularly help hospitality. For example, if a hospitality business wishes to employ a young person, aged 21 or younger, as long as their wage is less than around £50,000, the business is relieved from NI. That is up to 25 years if it hires a young apprentice. Of course, the Government are always considering the impacts of their policies on sectors as a whole.

Building on what the Minister said about employment costs, we have heard about the pressures that many hospitality businesses, particularly pubs, are feeling following the reduction to the threshold on the increase of the rates. As part of the work that the Minister is undertaking to review things in the round, could he focus on the possibility of increasing the employment allowance for smaller businesses in the sector? That could be a very welcome relief for them.

Minister, please watch the time.

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. We continue to look at the impact of tax policies across sectors. The Chancellor and I will keep tax policy under review in the run up to the Budget later this year. Let me make a couple more points before wrapping up in sufficient time for the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East to conclude.

We want to make sure that we cut the stifling red tape that is holding our pubs back across the country. At the Budget, we announced the first iteration of the national licensing policy framework. That does not sound very exciting, but it is very interesting. I have been pushing colleagues across Government on it, so that we can provide more clarity in our licensing framework to give pubs that want to open in certain ways or do certain things the flexibility to do so, to support their growth and wider economic growth.

There is the world cup game tonight, and pubs across England and Wales can soon benefit from extensions to licensing hours, as we are letting pubs stay open later for home nation games in the knockout stages. It is encouraging that Scotland did well the other day; hopefully, both teams will make it through to the knockout stages.

We are also backing pavement pints, with a commitment to make it easier for pubs to serve food and drink outside by cutting unnecessary bureaucracy. At present, many businesses are forced to reapply repeatedly for pavement licences to continue serving customers outdoors. That process can cost up to £350 each time, creating an avoidable and costly burden for businesses. I hope that the reforms we have announced will bring that to an end. Finally, in January, the Chancellor announced a £10 million package of funding for hospitality support over three years, up from £1.5 million for one year announced last April.

We understand the need to make sure that we do all we can to support pubs and our hospitality sector, particularly in vital rural communities. I thank Members for their contributions, which I will take back with me to the Treasury in the weeks and, I should hope, months to come.

After this debate, we all feel very thirsty for an ice cold lemonade.

I thank Members across the House for their moving stories of charity in their local pubs, the exciting growth stories and the stories of community. The Minister has heard very loudly the deafening calls for change. Hospitality is crying out for more breathing space. He gave a bit of hope on investment relief, but the Government need to go a lot faster and further. Not doing anything is also a decision, and it will have a huge impact, because more and more pubs will go under and unemployment will continue to rise, especially youth unemployment.

We want the Minister to be successful on economic growth. That endeavour is good for us all, but we cannot tax our way to growth. I encourage him to reflect on what has been said, and to be bold and brave. Although I will not be chanting his name tonight, I hope that he will recognise how deafening the calls for change are.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of fiscal support for rural pubs.

I will call Liz Twist to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

I beg to move, That this House has considered parity of esteem between physical and mental health.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. In my constituency surgeries I see the devastating consequences of our failure to treat mental illness with the urgency it requires. In my role as chair of the all party parliamentary group on suicide and self harm prevention, I hear from young people about their experiences and the impact of waiting for treatment from mental health services. Bad mental health is routinely cited as a reason for economic stagnation, low school attendance rates and an increase in benefit claimants. Long waits for mental health support are directly linked to worsening symptoms and, tragically, to spikes in self harm and suicide attempts.

Tragically, my constituent’s husband, John, took his own life in 2021 after a mental health crisis while in the care of NHS mental health services. Does the hon. Member agree that we need more Government support and funding for access to quality mental health services in rural areas? If we were losing people in this way to physical conditions, it would be a national scandal.

The hon. Member might be reading my mind, because I will come on to that issue. I am sorry to hear of the death of his constituent—it is tragic.

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and she is absolutely right to address this issue. In Northern Ireland, we have extreme mental health issues; indeed, the figure is 25% higher than it is here on the mainland. The Government have made a commitment to address the nation’s physical health. Does the hon. Lady agree that they must now treat the nation’s mental health equally? In doing so, they will address the emotional issues among the people we represent here.

I do agree, and I will expand more on that theme.

Parity of esteem means tackling mental health with exactly the same respect, funding and clinical focus as physical conditions.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate, and I know that she is a strong advocate for mental health in her role on the APPG. In the NHS, it is vital that funding for mental health keeps pace with funding for physical health care, and the mental health investment standard has been a crucial policy in driving parity of investment. Does she agree that it is vital that the mental health investment standard is retained in the NHS?

I agree with my hon. Friend on the importance of the mental health investment standard as one of the measures for securing good mental health support and for making mental health equal with physical health.

As I was saying, parity of esteem means tackling mental health with the same respect, funding and clinical focus as physical conditions. We are here today to debate that principle, which has been discussed in this place for over a decade, yet it remains unfulfilled. We have made great strides in mental health: the Mental Health Act 2025, investment in mental health support teams for schools, which were rolled out this week, and additional mental health workers. Now it is time to deliver on our manifesto commitment to “give mental health the same attention and focus as physical health.”

We need to look at the current waiting lists for mental health support, but before I look at the figures, I remind Members that every patient waiting to access mental health support is in urgent need of support, just as those on physical health waiting lists are. Sadly, and all too often, people see their condition worsen as they wait, which can lead to extreme consequences. Furthermore, physical illnesses frequently cause profound psychological distress, yet our services treat the physical and the mental in isolation. From my experiences of working with people who have rare conditions, I know the impact that that can have.

The most recent figures show that almost 1.87 million adults and over 576,000 children and young people currently hold open referrals for mental health services. If these were patients waiting for hip replacements or cardiac care, that would dominate the national discourse. NHS England has developed waiting list targets for mental health patients after referral—the longest being four weeks after referral for access to community based services for non urgent mental health care—but those developed standards have never been adopted. Research shows that 12 times more patients with mental health conditions are waiting longer than 18 months for treatment, compared to those with physical conditions. The Government have rightly instructed the NHS to drive down waiting times for elective physical health care, but so far mental health services have been excluded from that ambition.

The situation for our children and young people is particularly concerning. Barnardo’s says that one in five children now has a probable mental health disorder, which is double the rate in 2017. Demand has increased hugely, yet around 28% of referred children are still waiting for help, with nearly 40,000 facing unthinkable waits of over two years for treatment. We see the human cost of those delays in the lives of people like Amy, a young woman diagnosed with complex post traumatic stress disorder. She has spent over a decade isolated at home, yet she has seen a psychiatrist only once in those 10 years. We also see it in the harrowing accounts collected by Rethink Mental Illness. One patient told Rethink that their psychosis was full on and that an attempted suicide was the only thing that got them help. That is an unacceptable threshold for care.

I have heard of more experiences from the suicide prevention charity Body and Soul, with which I have worked. One young person it supported spent almost a year on an NHS waiting list for cognitive behavioural therapy. Just as they neared the top of the list, their health deteriorated into a severe crisis, and they attended A&E, battling suicidal thoughts. Instead of receiving urgent intervention, they were informed that their crisis made them “too severe” for the therapy they had waited so long to access. They were removed from the waiting list entirely and, with nowhere else to turn, they attempted to end their own life. As Body and Soul rightly highlights, no patient with a life threatening physical condition would be told they are too ill to qualify for treatment, unlike in this case.

Mental health charity Mind is calling for the development of open access mental health support pathways, ensuring that people can seek help early and directly, without facing unnecessary referral barriers or rigid clinical thresholds. When we fail to provide accessible care, the results can be fatal. People living with severe mental illness face a premature mortality gap of 15 to 20 years, compared to the rest of the population. Closing that gap by treating mental health with the same urgency as physical health must be the baseline of our approach. Rethink Mental Illness recently found that 83% of people said their mental health deteriorated while waiting for support, and nearly a third of those whose health worsened attempted suicide. Families are making impossible choices, with some parents reporting that they are skipping meals to pay for private therapy for their children because they cannot get the help they need.

This crisis in mental health impacts on our Government’s core mission to kick start economic growth. We are seeing a rise in economic inactivity driven by long term sickness, and poor mental health is a primary factor. The Mental Health Foundation estimates that the economic and social costs of mental health problems reach £118 billion a year. Those figures have not arisen overnight; the previous Conservative Government have much to answer for in this crisis.

We need to make sure that we maintain the emphasis on mental health. Last year, the Department of Health and Social Care reported that the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health is expected to decline over the next two years. We need to look at that again.

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.

My hon. Friend is quite right to point to those figures and to say that we need much more input into tackling that difference in funding.

As I said, the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health is expected to decline, and we need to look again at that. That is exactly why the mental health investment standard was introduced, and why we need the planned 10-year mental health strategy, when it is published, to set out the actions we need to take to ensure that mental health has parity of esteem with physical health. It is vital that the MHIS continues to protect mental health spending until a suitable long term funding measure is firmly in place to ensure that funding matches need.

Three weeks ago, the interim Milburn review highlighted the unique combination of pressures faced by young people entering adulthood today, including a mental health system that cannot respond to the current level and severity of demand, a pandemic that affected their social development and an ongoing loneliness crisis.

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I know that this is a topic she understands deeply and has campaigned on for many years. She is right to highlight the Milburn review. Does she agree that part of the response has to be developing a mental health support system that is preventive, not just reactive? We see that in child and adolescent mental health, particularly in Scotland, where there are enormous waitlists. We have to tackle those, but we also have to have a system—in education, for example—where we prevent people from reaching crisis, whether in childhood or when they become adults.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am so pleased that we set up mental health teams in schools.

We need to look at preventive measures so that we do not keep getting into this position. When people are left to languish on waiting lists, their ability to participate in the workforce collapses. We must stop waiting for people to hit rock bottom before we step in: we have to deploy preventive measures. It is simply not good enough that one in three young people must wait more than 18 months for treatment after referral.

I welcome the changes the Government have implemented, the extra investment for mental health support in schools, and the expansion of that support to 100% of schools by 2030, but I have some specific asks of the Minister, supported by mental health charities. First, will she ensure that reducing waiting times for non urgent community mental health care is included as a specific priority in NHS planning guidance? That would send a clear message to local systems that this must be tackled alongside elective physical care.

Secondly, Mind, the mental health charity, says that reducing mental health care waiting times must be treated as a core test of parity of esteem; Rethink makes the same point. Will the Minister commit to fully rolling out the access and waiting time standards consulted on by NHS England in 2021 to ensure that emergency mental health care is provided within one hour, urgent care within four hours and community care within four weeks?

Thirdly, to help us to meet our shared ambitions for parity of esteem, will the Minister outline how we will work together to reverse the projected decline over the next two years in the proportion of NHS funding spent on mental health? Will the Government also commit to protecting the mental health investment standard until a long term alternative funding plan is firmly in place?

Finally, the Government have outlined an ambitious shift toward neighbourhood health services. How will the Department ensure that community mental health is a central component of this roll out, so that patients can access multidisciplinary support before they reach crisis point? We have a historic opportunity to build a national health service that treats the mind and the body with equal respect. I look forward to the Minister’s response on how we will finally deliver true parity of esteem between physical and mental health services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate, for her long standing commitment to improving mental health services, and for her phenomenal work in her role as chair of the APPG on suicide and self harm prevention. I am also grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and shared experiences from their constituencies. I am sorry to hear of John’s death. Men’s suicide is a huge concern; many of us, myself included, can share personal stories. We need to do much more in that space.

This debate speaks to the heart of what a modern health and care system should be. For too long, mental health has not been given the same attention, priority or esteem as physical health. That has had profound consequences for individuals, families and communities across the country. It also has significant economic impacts, as we heard from my hon. Friend, with an estimated 1.26 million 16 to 64-year olds economically inactive due to mental health issues in 2024-25. The National Health Service Act 2006 states that health includes mental health. This Government are committed to giving mental health the same attention and focus as physical health, and ensuring that people can access timely, high quality support, regardless of whether they are experiencing a mental or a physical health condition.

As my hon. Friend said, parity of esteem means recognising that mental and physical health are inseparable. Far too often, services have treated them as distinct issues, when in reality they are connected. Of course, many people experience mental and physical health conditions at the same time, with a cause and effect relationship that goes both ways. We know that poor mental health can increase the risk of developing physical health problems, while living with a long term physical condition can have a significant impact on a person’s mental wellbeing. People living with severe mental illness experience some of the poorest physical health outcomes in our society, and on average die 15 to 20 years earlier than the general population. That is why we are committed to improving the ways that services respond to people with co occurring mental and physical health needs.

Care must be co ordinated around the individual rather than around organisational boundaries, ensuring that people receive holistic support that addresses all aspects of their health and wellbeing. NHS England has developed the mental health personalised care framework, which sets out how services should assess and manage people’s care in partnership with them and in collaboration with all relevant teams. That framework places particular emphasis on joined up care, safety and risk management. It has been tested in local systems and will be published shortly. I know that will answer some of the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, but not all of them, so I shall try to address those points in my speech.

On wraparound care, we have a fantastic initiative in Winchester where Citizens Advice spends time with patients at Melbury Lodge, the in patient unit, to help them deal with all their life admin, such as debt issues and money issues. It has been shown that those who receive that service have a shorter stay in hospital, are significantly less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they have been discharged. Is the Minister willing to meet me and the team to discuss that initiative? For every £1 spent on it, £14.08 is saved in cost avoidance for the NHS.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the wraparound care in Winchester citizens advice bureau. We need the local health ecosystem to partner with initiatives in the voluntary or charity sector such as that one, and acknowledge their impact, fund and support them. Some may think that things such as debt are basic, but their impact on mental health cannot be overestimated. I am sure that officials will want to meet the hon. Gentleman and others to look at the landscape across the country, because there are some fantastic initiatives that we need to recognise, partner with and support.

The Government are taking action to elevate the status of mental health. For 2026-27, NHS mental health spending is forecast to increase to a record £16.1 billion, representing a real terms increase of around £140 million compared with the previous year. Alongside that, the mental health investment standard remains in place. Integrated care boards are required to protect mental health spending in real terms over the next three years, ensuring that mental health continues to receive the investment needed to improve services and outcomes.

Investment alone is not enough. We must transform how care is delivered. That is why the 10-year health plan sets out our vision for a neighbourhood health service, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett mentioned. That is about bringing care closer to people’s homes, communities creating genuinely patient centred services, and moving away from a fragmented system that often leaves people navigating multiple services without the support they need. I hope the ICBs are engaging hon. Members in all parts of the House to feed into the design of the neighbourhood health centre model and asking about the unmet needs and service gaps in their constituencies and regions.

The Minister is being kind with her time, as always. As part of our inquiry into mental health services, the Health and Social Care Committee visited the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centre pilots and Trieste, where the model originated. They have clearly been hugely successful already. The Minister mentioned the broader neighbourhood healthcare changes; can she assure us that the learnings from those hubs will be spread across the country? Will there be a clear road map for rolling out these services to every area?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; this is a great pilot, and there are some real, huge successes. The Government must learn from the impact that the hubs will have, and of course we want to roll them out. That is why we are piloting six community based health centres across England in Tower Hamlets, Lewisham, Whitehaven, York, Sheffield and Birmingham. Those centres provide round the clock open access treatment and support for adults with severe mental health needs and work closely with primary care and community services to provide joined up care.

All hon. Members across the House will recognise that it is not appropriate for someone who is facing crisis or poor mental health to be sat in A&E; that just exacerbates their condition and situation. The community based health centre pilots show that a different model can work. In May, my noble Friend Baroness Merron visited the community based mental health centre in east Birmingham, where she met staff and service users to hear directly about the service’s impact. The visit demonstrated the important role that community based mental health support has in providing earlier intervention, improving experiences of care and helping people to access support before reaching crisis point.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett is particularly interested in how the reforms will benefit her constituents. Although her constituency is not home to one of the six core or the 16 associated community based mental health pilot sites, a range of community based support is already available locally. Gateshead Connects hubs provide accessible community drop in spaces that offer mental health and wellbeing support alongside practical advice on issues such as housing and finances. Residents can access NHS talking therapies through services based at Blaydon primary care centre, and community mental health support networks operating across County Durham provide peer led groups and safe spaces for people living in and around Consett. Those local services reflect the wider direction of travel in our 10-year health plan, which will bring support closer to people’s homes, strengthen community based provision and ensure that people can access help earlier, before their needs escalate into crisis.

Significant progress has also been made in building a stronger crisis care pathway. That pathway includes the NHS 111 mental health option; the expansion of crisis cafés, about which we hear from so many hon. Members, as well as sanctuaries and crisis houses; and the roll out of crisis tech services across England. We have completed delivery of the mental health response vehicle programme, with 88 vehicles now operating across local systems. There is now full national coverage of 24/7 mental health liaison teams in acute hospitals, and we are investing up to £120 million to increase the number of sites with mental health emergency departments to 85.

The Government have also delivered on our commitment to modernise the legal framework that underpins mental health care. The Mental Health Act 2025 brings mental health legislation into the 21st century and ensures that people receiving treatment have greater choice, autonomy and involvement in decisions about their care.

My hon. Friend says that parity of esteem must extend to children and young people, and she and many other hon. Members spoke about cases of children facing crisis. The children and young people’s modern service framework is being developed and remains on track for publication in autumn 2026. The framework will support a more integrated approach to physical and mental health.

Hon. Members rightly spoke about access to services and waiting times. It is unacceptable that some people are waiting far too long to receive the mental health care that they need, particularly children and young people and those experiencing a mental health crisis. ICBs must do more. No child should be left waiting. The Government have delivered three years ahead of schedule our commitment to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers across the NHS, in the hope of easing pressures on services and improving access to care. We are also expanding NHS talking therapies and continuing the roll out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges to achieve full national coverage by 2029. We know that we need to go further.

Some residents in rural Somerset have said to me that they are waiting 18 months to receive talking therapies. That is just not good enough.

I absolutely agree. That is the responsibility of the ICBs, which have been informed that they must make sure that waiting lists come down.

We know that we need to go further. We are developing a new cross Government mental health strategy for England covering all ages, which will be published later this year. The Department is keen to hear the views of hon. Members from across the House and I am happy to share with any hon. Member details of how they can feed into that work. The strategy seeks to transform mental health support by setting out a plan to respond earlier, reducing waiting times and helping people to remain active. Importantly, it will look beyond the NHS and recognise the critical role of schools, employers, local government and the voluntary and community sector, because achieving parity of esteem is not solely the responsibility of the NHS.

This debate has highlighted both the progress made and the challenges that remain. We are under no illusion about the scale of the task, but this Government are committed to building a health and care system where mental health is treated with the same seriousness, urgency and ambition as physical health. Parity of esteem is not an aspiration; it is a necessity. Through sustained investment, service reform and a renewed focus on prevention, particularly early prevention, we are determined to make it a reality. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett; I have a huge amount of respect and regard for her, not only because she secured this debate but because of all the work she continues to do. I know that she will continue to hold us to account. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions.

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?

This is a really important debate. In Falmouth and Truro, we have a lot of abuse of shop workers in connection with shoplifting. An issue in the past has been that people think they are immune if they shoplift something worth less than £200. That is changing and the police will now arrest those people. Will my hon. Friend deal with that different way of tackling shoplifting, which often comes with a level of abuse and violence these days?

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.

The staff at St Michael’s Co operative in Yeovil have reported to the police more than 100 incidents of shoplifting a week, but the police presence still is not forthcoming. Do you agree that rural police forces need a lot more funding?

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 thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. He is touching on broader sectors, and he is exactly right that this is an epidemic across public facing and customer facing roles. I recently went to a GP surgery where receptionists told me they deal with sometimes weekly incidents of racial abuse. They showed me windows that had been smashed by patients who were unhappy about the service they were receiving. It feels as though there has been a cultural shift in what people deem to be acceptable behaviour towards, for example, ticket guards at stations and receptionists. Recently, a member of staff at our hospital was seriously attacked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to send a clear message that these behaviours are not acceptable and properly resource the police to crack down on these incidents?

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 being extremely generous with his time, and he is making an important speech. At a supermarket in Muirend in my constituency, there is a strong connection between other criminal actions—particularly shoplifting—and abuse of staff and sometimes physical violence towards staff. Do you agree that the UK Government must work with the Scottish Government and the police to ensure that we take a co ordinated approach to resolving all retail related crime, because that often leads to abuse of shop workers?

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.

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.

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.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I also remind Members that they must always talk through the Chair. I know it is a little strange, but you have to address each other as “he” and “she”. I think I heard “you” three times.

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) for telling us the stories of this issue with passion, belief and conviction, as he so often does. He brought them to our attention capably today. It is always a pleasure to come along and support him. Indeed, I always do because he brings issues to the Chamber that are pertinent to me, which I will explain in relation to my constituency. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place—she is back as well. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), is also here again. It is almost like “Groundhog Day”, only with a different subject. We wake up at 6 o’clock when the alarm goes off, but I digress.

I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, as that is my duty here on behalf of my constituents in Strangford. When we talk about the rise of retail crime and abuse against customer facing workers in Northern Ireland, we are talking not about isolated incidents but about a systematic, daily onslaught against our high streets. I am sad to say it is at that level in my constituency.

The latest figures from Retailers Against Crime expose the terrifying scale of the problem. Shoplifting in Northern Ireland has surged by a staggering 33% year on year. Let us be clear: this is not petty theft, but highly organised, aggressive criminal behaviour that has caused retail financial losses to skyrocket by some 45%. Far worse, it is not just a financial toll; there is a devastating human cost, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) said. That cost is the people who never thought that they would ever be threatened at their place of work, who probably know everybody in the community and who suddenly find themselves being threatened, traumatised and unable to cope. They never envisaged that as part of their job.

The retail union USDAW has revealed the deeply alarming statistic that 18% of shop workers in Northern Ireland suffered a direct physical attack over a single 12-month period. That means that nearly one in five workers went to do their job and ended up being physically assaulted. That is why this debate is incredibly helpful for our constituents and for those who want change and protection for shop workers.

My son Jamie, my eldest boy, was the manager of Shop 4 U on Newtownards High Street. He left that job some five years ago, but at that time he was the manager. It is a very big shop with an off licence at the end of it. One night, as so often happened at that time, a guy came in, probably high on drugs. He had a knife in his hand and threatened Jamie. Jamie was right to step back and say, “Look, you go ahead.” Why would someone throw themselves in front of somebody with a knife who is perhaps unable to understand their pleas, or who is aggressive enough to ignore those pleas, whatever they may be? Why would someone do that if it is only for a bottle of whisky or gin or a dozen beers? A life is worth more than that. On that occasion they had CCTV in the shop, so they were able to chase up the individual and see where they came from.

My point is that the traumatic effect that that has on people will differ from person to person, character to character and personality to personality. Jamie was probably able to get over it because he is a strong young man. Somebody else who is threatened by a person with a knife may not be able to get over it. What about the ladies in the shop, for instance? What if Jamie had not been there as the manager of the store? I often think of how they would have responded. We look back at those things.

Furthermore, some 60% of all violent incidents, threats and verbal tirades directed at local shop staff are triggered by confronting shoplifters. Physical abuse is one thing, but verbal abuse can be almost as terrifying because of the aggression behind it. Our retail staff have been forced on to the frontline. It used to be a case of, “Let’s go and do me six hours, four hours, eight hours in the shop and fill the shelves, speak to the people, look after the customers.” But now they get threatened and, all of a sudden, their job is not the job they signed up for. They face everything from physical intimidation to the terrifying threat of ammonia and acid attacks. Bleach is used against them as well.

Our official Police Service of Northern Ireland data shows an overall decrease of 2.3% in standard police logs, which tells us a dangerous truth. It is one that the hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned and he is right. That is also my perception in my constituency. It proves there is a massive under reporting gap: every verbal or physical attack on a shop worker might not be reported to the police. If it is reported to the police, is there a reaction? That is what the hon. Gentleman referred to. Shop workers endure verbal abuse and threats every single day, but they do not report it because they feel the system has abandoned them. If they feel the system has abandoned them, the system has to change.

We cannot look at the numbers and do nothing. Our independent shops have been forced to absorb a massive crime tax just to pay for security. I am the oldest person in this Chamber—I suspect by far—and I can remember going to the shops down the road and there was not a security man in the shop. There was never any need to have a security person in the shop. There was no need for CCTV cameras. A police van was always available, by the way. It was never too far away. It was always on the beat, but things have changed.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in commending the work that organisations such as the Harrogate business improvement district do to support the town centre in Harrogate. It has recently hired a business crime officer who has 30 years’ experience in policing. Having organisations that connect the shops, the town centre, the police and the council, keeping everyone looped together, adds real value to our communities. It helps keep them safe and reduces crime and threats to shop workers.

The hon. Gentleman always brings something pertinent to the debate, so I thank him for that. That is a positive step forward and probably one of the things that the Minister will respond to when she concludes.

We are talking about absorbing a crime tax just to pay for security when staff live in fear. They need to know that abuse is not acceptable, whether they are paid a minimum wage or £1 million a year. A job should never determine the abuse that someone has. We need to make that point very clear today.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly for securing the debate. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution and to the contributions of the two shadow spokespersons and the speakers who follow me.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on the passionate way in which he laid out the case. The Crime and Policing Act was a key moment in our journey to a society in which the job that we do does not determine how we are treated at work, and retail workers across my constituency are now safer, thanks to the actions of this Government and the campaigning by the Co operative party and USDAW in particular.

Before I was elected, I went to visit Central Co op workers in my constituency in Stretton, Horninglow and Winshill, and I was shocked by what I heard. Pretty much every worker that I spoke to had faced verbal or physical abuse of some kind simply for doing their job. They were proud, hard working people simply going out to do a job and provide for their family.

Sexism and racism makes women workers and workers of colour even more vulnerable. Probably the most horrific story I heard when I spoke to those workers was about a female colleague doused in liquid and threatened with a lighter. I cannot imagine what that would have been like for her in the moment and then reflecting on it afterwards. But in true brave spirit, she was back at work within days. Often, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said, the trauma of that abuse goes home with people. It does not just affect them and their mood; their wider family are impacted, too. That abuse is an assault on their pride in who they are.

Often, retail workers, particularly those who work in shops, will live local to where they work. I heard one case of a female shop worker who was verbally assaulted and then saw the person who had committed that abuse as she was walking home in her uniform. Due to this Labour Government making assault against retail workers a specific offence, I can say to those people I met, “We have heard you. We have acted.”

It must be noted that the law change did not include verbal abuse or wider customer facing roles, so that is why I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on securing this debate and on the points that he has made. I cannot pretend that things will change just because the law has changed—sadly, they will not. The fact that we have to put up signs in shops and hospitals and on our buses asking people to be kind shows that, as a society, the basic respect that we had for each other has broken down. I hope that we can restore that.

The change in the law was, however, a clear statement that assault of retail workers will not be tolerated. We have repealed the appalling Tory law that meant that those stealing items under £200 were effectively decriminalised.

A frustration I have heard about local enforcement is that even if the issues are reported—they are often not, unfortunately, because people give up—and the police come out, and an arrest is made for theft, abuse or the other things we are discussing today, the perpetrator can be back on the street that day, often committing the same sorts of offences, because they are not held in custody. They will wait a long time to go to court, and prisons are in a dire state after 14 years of Tory government left us with no places.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to think about alternative forms of punishment and deterrence? That could be banning orders from town centres, banning orders from the transport system of people who persistently dodge fares and assault and abuse staff, and other forms of deterrent to stop these behaviours blighting our town centres and public services.

My hon. Friend makes a great point. I have often heard about repeat offenders and the same sort of people coming into the shop. Workers often have to protect themselves from individuals who they know are going to commit a criminal act.

Unfortunately, abuse against customer facing workers happens everywhere in society. I have heard that from workers across different sectors of our economy. I should probably declare my membership of Unison and the GMB union. I recently met GMB Swissport members at East Midlands airport about their “Airport Workers Against Abuse” campaign. I heard their shocking stories about the physical attacks and verbal abuse they suffer in terminals. There is a difference between how people can be policed landside versus airside. As there are fewer protections airside, workers are more vulnerable. Travelling abroad is often a very stressful time, but there is no excuse to take it out on the hard working men and women who get us to where we want to be. The Government and the airports should listen to the GMB’s campaign and introduce stricter penalties to protect the dignity of our airport workers.

Those working in customer facing roles in my constituency, whether in a pub or a nursery or driving a bus, deserve to have dignity at work and the right to do their job without facing abuse. It is on us to put in place the conditions to make sure that happens.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening remarks.

Abuse against people in customer facing roles is always unacceptable. No one should ever have to face abuse in their place of work. The Liberal Democrats were supportive of the measures included in the recent Crime and Policing Act 2026, which introduced the specific recording of offences of assault against retail workers. After years of increasing violence and abuse experienced by those working in retail and other frontline work, the introduction of this offence should act as a strong deterrent against abuse and allow data on such abuse to be more reliably recorded.

Although there has been an improvement on the legal deterrence front and in the collection of data, we need greater enforcement to ensure that offenders are reprimanded for committing acts of abuse. After a decade of cuts to police numbers and resources, people want a return to having a visible police presence in their communities, focusing on preventing and solving crime. Restoring a permanent police presence on our local high streets is the most effective way to deter rogue operators and give people confidence to report illicit behaviour.

This Labour Government promised the public 13,000 more police officers. Instead, officer numbers have fallen. By March this year, there were 4,000 fewer frontline officers than the year before. Over the past 18 months, we have seen not only a reduction of force numbers, but a decline in policing resources. In my Richmond Park constituency, there is now no 24/7 police front counter in the whole of Richmond borough, and the Royal Parks police force has been disbanded, increasing pressure on neighbourhood teams. Just this week, police in Richmond Park had to make an operational decision about whether to provide a presence by Teddington Lock to deter children from jumping off the lock, which puts them at risk of drowning, or to police bonfires, drug use and antisocial behaviour on Richmond Green. I do not envy the officers who have to make those operational decisions, but the lack of funding has put our local force in that position.

What has been most noticeable in our community is the rise of retail crime. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to do more to address this.

Domestic abuse survivors who work in retail roles are at particular risk in that their perpetrators often know exactly where they are, which till they might be working at and what their shift patterns are. The perpetrators can continue to perpetrate abuse even while their victim or survivor is at work. Does my hon. Friend believe that the Government need to go even further to provide protections to specifically protect domestic abuse survivors in retail roles?

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent intervention and for all his work. He speaks so powerfully for the victims of domestic abuse, and I thank him for taking this opportunity to raise the issue. I hope that the Minister has heard what he said, because it is an extremely serious point. We should have the victims of domestic abuse at the front of our minds when we think about this issue and the particular risk that it creates for them.

Shoplifting not only causes shops to lose out on sales, with the costs then passed on to paying customers, but means that staff members, often young people, are met with the possible threat of violence. Shoplifting has risen by a staggering 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Every time I meet the owner of a local store, I am told that shoplifting has effectively become decriminalised. Thieves do not feel the threat of reprisal, and staff do not feel protected by law enforcement. It is incredibly frustrating that the Government have not connected the dots between increased fear and crime and the stripping back of our police forces’ ability to do their jobs.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have been calling for more money for CCTV through loans of up to £6,500 to small independent convenience stores so that they can install modern CCTV to deter shoplifting and make our high streets safer. The installation of CCTV would act as a deterrent against shoplifting and abuse against staff, save money for police forces by preventing such crimes in the first place, and allow them to conclude investigations more quickly because of a stronger evidence base.

Shop owners and staff members are often told by the police that it is not a cost effective use of resources to follow up on relatively minor thefts, but to every local business and paying customer it is. I urge the Government to recognise the detrimental impact that shoplifting is having on our society and to take this issue seriously.

Does my hon. Friend agree that police powers could be beefed up through the use of public spaces protection orders? People in customer facing roles often end up with abuse from people who might have been drinking. Does she agree that we should look at how those powers could be better used, given that communities, organisations, councils and businesses want them to be enforced?

I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. We could be doing so much more, not just through the police but across society in different ways, to increase safety on our high streets. People need to know that they are backed up by the police, and that they have a strong and effective police presence to turn to when they have an issue.

The vast majority of abuse that customer facing staff receive on a day to day basis may not come under the authority of the police. That is especially relevant for female members of staff, who will experience crude comments, unsolicited flirting and, at times, explicit harassment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) raised. Having to work under such conditions can cause anxiety in staff members and make them feel extremely uncomfortable at work. A study by Unite found that 56% of women in the workplace have been subject to sexually offensive jokes, 43% have been inappropriately touched and 25% have experienced sexual harassment. In addition, a TUC survey found that 30% of women who experience harassment do not report it to their employer. This goes so much further than just abuse for customer facing staff; it speaks to a culture across some workplaces in the UK, which we need a much more fundamental approach to root out and change.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.

As others have noted, the abuse faced by many people working in customer facing roles is deeply distressing. We should all be concerned by the rise in abuse, threats and physical assault against people just trying to do their jobs. The trend cannot be divorced from the rise in so called petty crime, including shoplifting, as several hon. Members have highlighted. According to a survey conducted by the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, in cases where retail staff faced abuse, 70% of incidents had been triggered by shoplifting. Of those incidents, two thirds were related to drug addiction or suspected drug addiction.

Failing to clamp down on crimes such as shoplifting is not cost free. It does not just make life terrible for the businesses that are the direct victims of the theft; it puts retail workers and the public at risk. The kind of people who are engaged in habitual shoplifting are often involved in other types of crime, and they represent a very real danger to us all. Unfortunately, under this Government’s Sentencing Act 2026, up to 12,000 of this country’s most prolific shoplifters will avoid jail altogether, leaving them free to not just continue stealing but abuse and harass retail workers.

While prolific offenders walk free, law abiding people face ever more rules and restrictions, and ever greater suspicion from the authorities. Instead of going after the hyper prolific offenders who drive such a disproportionate amount of crime in this country, the state responds by making life harder for ordinary people. Is it any wonder that so many people now feel that they are living under something called anarcho tyranny? In such circumstances, the state is either unable or unwilling to control violent crime, theft and genuine disorder. While failing to enforce the law against genuine criminals, the state vigorously and inflexibly enforces a mountain of complex, often seemingly arbitrary rules on ordinary people who work hard, pay their taxes and do the right thing.

That can produce infuriating and ludicrous outcomes. Shop Around the Clock, a fabulous store in St Michaels in my constituency, is plagued by shoplifting. Suki, who manages the business, very kindly had me in for a morning shift last Friday. He told me that, despite years of reporting regular shoplifting to the police, the only time they had visited was to let him know that the pictures he had put up of regular thieves violated GDPR. He also walked me through his report to the police of the latest shoplifting incident he had suffered that Tuesday. The process was slow and repetitive—easily 10 times as long as it needed to be. For small business owners like Suki, who are already doing a million things at once, it is often hard to justify that wasted time. Especially given advances in technology, this seems a crazy way to insist that people record crimes.

This is the experience of far too many people in Britain today. They feel their own behaviour is restricted, and they meet with resistance and hassle when they engage with the authorities, yet they see crime and disorder go unpunished. If they try to do something to stop the crime themselves, they are crushed. The rise in attacks against retail workers is one terrible manifestation of this, but there are many.

This is clearly completely unfair but, fortunately, there is a solution. Speak to any member of the British public and they will be able to tell you exactly what to do: spend less time on policing speech and filling out paperwork and more time on catching thieves; give police forces the tools they need to tackle these crimes; and, when we catch a career criminal, make sure that they serve a proper prison sentence. Put simply, we can fix this problem by pursuing criminals, enforcing the law and letting law abiding people get on with their lives. Given that so much of this abuse is triggered by shoplifting, and given how onerous the process of reporting it is, my main, specific question to the Minister is this: what kind of conversations has she had about changing the online reporting system, particularly in the light of technology innovations that could make it so much simpler and faster?

I call the Minister. You have until about 5.30 pm; please leave a little time for the Member in charge to wind up.

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Members might be pleased to know that I probably will not take all the time available to me—perhaps I will give them a few minutes of their life back to do something else.

I want to start by saying what an important debate this is. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) is absolutely right to bring the issue of the abuse of shop workers to this place. It is enormously important, and many Members of Parliament have campaigned for many years for the legislation that we have just passed, alongside the incredible work of the Co op, USDAW and others. When I was shadow Policing Minister, I remember introducing a similar amendment to Government legislation and debating it with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who was the Policing Minister at the time. He argued that there was no need for these measures, because abuse of a shop worker is an aggravating factor, and that the evidence did not support their introduction. That argument was wrong, and I am really pleased that we have passed this law.

It was the right thing to do for a number of reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly said throughout his speech, we need to make sure we are implementing the legislation and seeing results, and that we use it now that we have it. It sends a powerful message that we in this place see and understand this behaviour, and that we will not tolerate it any more. It is important that we say that loud and clear.

The speeches made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) were really important and spoke to the nub of the problem. The hon. Member for Strangford said that people feel that the system has abandoned them, and that is right. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), also spoke about the way in which people who live by the rules feel that everybody else seems to be getting away with not living by the rules. That has wider consequences for our society than just the problem of retail crime and the abuse of shop workers.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter spoke of a very serious case in which somebody was doused with liquid and then threatened with being set on fire. That is horrific. The abuse that shop workers receive, which was mentioned by the spokesperson for the Lib Dems, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), ranges from those very extreme cases to the abuse that people get every day. I remember talking to shop workers at my local Co op about the abuse they faced. Someone said, “Well, it’s just part of the job.” No, it is not. It needs to stop and we need to make sure we are doing all the right things.

The Minister does fantastic work in her area. Will she join me in commending the work that organisations and charities such as Victim Support do to help people who find themselves in the horrendous situation that she outlined and that we have heard about from Members across the Chamber? Will she elaborate on the support she and her colleagues in other Departments give to people who work in shops and other customer facing roles?

The hon. Member is right that Victim Support and other organisations give really important support to people in such situations. Across different Departments, we all have a role to play in trying to stop this abuse and the retail crime that goes alongside so much of it. I will go into that in more detail.

First, I will set out the statistics on shop theft, which drives a lot of the abuse that we see and is often perpetrated by prolific offenders. In the year before we came to power, there was a 30% rise in shop theft, and in the past year there has been a 1% fall. A 1% fall does not sound great, but when we compare it with a 30% rise, it shows that we are completely turning the tide. I know that members of the public will say, “Well, that’s just statistics; that’s not my experience,” and it will take us a while to make people feel safer and tackle the huge problem that we still have. I want to reassure Members that—my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked about this—because of the policing interventions that we have done and because of what a lot of shops have done, we are beginning to turn the tide on shop theft. That is important.

A lot of the larger retailers admittedly have more funds to do this, but the Co operative Group, for example, has done incredible things to design out crime in its shops, and it has seen the biggest fall compared with other retailers. Lots of others are doing interesting things, whether that is having live facial recognition; designing out the ability for people to get behind the shop counter and steal some of the alcohol that might be there; having cameras on shop workers; or having security people. All those things are undoubtedly making a difference, and so is the ability of our police to respond.

We have been clear with our wonderful police that we want them in our neighbourhoods tackling this type of crime. We have already seen over 3,000 more police in our neighbourhoods, and we have committed to having 13,000. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson talked about police numbers. The previous Government cut 20,000 police and then recruited 20,000 police, but they put 12,000 of them behind desks. Our measure is not about exact numbers—we want 13,000 more police in our communities, and we want outcomes. That is what we are driving towards. There are other things that we can do and that we are doing in this space that will also make a difference, and we will keep striving to do more.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent talked about technology, databases and wanting to cut bureaucracy for our police. I 100% agree with that. Last week, we launched PoliceAI with £75 million of funding to use AI to take away some of the nonsense bureaucracy that our police have to do. I have given it two first tasks in relation to outward facing technology: one is to tackle tool theft and the other is to tackle retail crime. There are lots of quite good systems that different parts of the country are using to more easily record shop theft and upload imagery and CCTV. We want to design AI that can read across all of those so that the police can easily see and bring together who the prolific offenders are.

There was talk of prolific offenders in this debate, and it is true that a small cohort of people are responsible for a large amount of retail crime and abuse against shop workers. They are often people with very complex needs—they will have an addiction; they will be drug addicts or alcoholics—and we in the Home Office are designing a programme to target those prolific offenders.

Some areas do that already, and people have been doing it increasingly, but there are things that we can put in place to help us really target that prolific cohort, whether that is providing the support they need to get into treatment or more interventions to make sure they cannot do what they want to. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) said that we should be doing more to use things like orders to stop people coming into a community, or tagging. I think we need to be using all of those more, and we are designing a programme of work to do exactly that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly asked if I would meet USDAW, and I am always very happy to do that. I have done so many times, but it is probably timely that I meet it again now that the Crime and Policing Act has been passed. He also asked how we would measure progress. We will measure what happens with the absolute numbers and the reporting of these issues, and whether people are reporting—whether that is through USDAW or our links in the retail sector. We will measure it through the crime statistics and what is happening as a result.

My hon. Friend also asked, importantly, why the provision is defined as being just about shop workers and why we did not make it wider to include transport workers or people who work in banks, for example. We deliberately kept it narrow to avoid any ambiguity in the courts. I know people disagree with that, but we just have to agree to disagree; that is what we have done in the legislation. However, if the legislation makes a marked difference, which we hope it will, of course we will need to look at whether the provision should apply elsewhere.

I have met representatives from banks, and I have had conversations about the particular challenges they have. They face the problem of abuse—I do not want to deny that—but the frequent protests they are increasingly experiencing are a slightly different issue, and one that we are talking to them about to try to support them through.

With the number of police in our communities going up; with the new rule that all thefts under £200 have to be investigated; with the new tech, IT and AI that can help us read across all these different systems; with the law in place; with the police giving a strong message that we want to see people punished for abusing shop workers; and with the work that we are beginning to do on prolific offenders, hopefully we will increasingly see results. The fundamental point that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly and everybody here has made is that we cannot accept this as normal behaviour—it is not. We will not tolerate it, and we will keep working until we tackle it.

I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Will she comment on something that I have witnessed on social media: the filming of shop workers in customer facing roles to generate content and clicks? That is pervasive and nasty in nature. Does the Minister have any thoughts on what the Government could do to tackle that issue?

There is a wider question about social media and how it sometimes drives these kinds of behaviours. People are almost goading each other to do more extreme activities—I have heard about that in a number of areas. This week, I was told about a new trend that I find utterly extraordinary: people are breaking into houses, filming someone asleep, and then leaving and putting that on social media. That is horrific. They do not take anything or do anything, but they are basically competing with each other to do that. Clearly, we are having a national debate, and the Government have taken action, about the issue of under-16s, but there is a much bigger debate still to have about social media and how it is driving these kinds of behaviours.

Having said that I would be brief, I seem not to have been as brief as I expected. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly on his powerful speech and on securing this really good debate. He should be assured that the Government are on the side of people who just want to do their job, and who should not be abused while they are doing that job. That is not acceptable, and we will keep doing what we can.

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.

Sitting adjourned.