Peter Fortune MP: speeches

I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?

I appreciate the hon. Lady giving way so early in her speech, because I have to run to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I agree with all the points she is making, but would she talk later about the impact on the pub trade? This policy will hit the pub trade by about £50 million—it is going to do some real damage to a very important industry.

What impact assessment has been done to look at the Welsh Government’s ability to service the additional borrowing?

Sorry if this is slightly parochial: I welcome the release of spectrum, but what guidance will be given to Ofcom to help with the roll-out in semi-rural areas such as Biggin Hill in my constituency?

The hon. Member is making an incredibly important speech. As someone who has visited the site of the Nova music festival, I have sensed some of the horrific slaughter and how awful that must be for those generations who are living with it. Referring to what the lecturer said, what powers should universities have to discipline members of staff who make such outrageous statements?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the invaluable work of Opportunity Bromley and Your Bromley in my constituency to support big and small local businesses. I particularly want to single out Your Bromley, which works tirelessly to make sure that Bromley’s high street is an attractive and enjoyable place to visit and shop. In just the past week it held its Floral Fest, which transformed Bromley high street with colourful planter displays inspired by this year’s theme, “Growing Together”. I look forward to continuing to work with them to support the high street in the weeks and months ahead. Bromley and Biggin Hill needs its high streets to thrive. Some 21.5% of my constituents are employed in the hospitality, retail and leisure industries, but our high streets, like many across the country, have suffered under this Government’s constant attacks. The business rates hike alone, which was forced on local high streets by the Treasury, has faced some high streets with average rateable value increases of up to 82%, meaning thousands of pounds in extra costs. The Conservatives have a real plan to back our high streets, starting with the introduction of a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sector in England. That relief would benefit 250,000 businesses, including many in my constituency, and deliver substantial savings that could be reinvested in better premises, more staff and lower prices, as well as lifting thousands out of business rates altogether. We need our high streets. They are the centres of our communities, but if the Government do not see the pain that they are inflicting on businesses up and down the country, they will ensure the death of the high street. I will always stand up for the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy in Bromley and Biggin Hill.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Does she share my concern about the difference between the numbers of first-time attendees to screening and returning attendees, at 89.1% and 63% respectively? Does she have a view on how we can increase the number attending their first screening?

I have been contacted by a constituent in Biggin Hill who is deeply concerned that schools are not made aware when individuals who have been charged with child sexual offences are living in close proximity to the school. I appreciate that we have to balance safeguarding with legal and privacy issues, but surely making the schools aware makes sense. Can we have a debate in this place on community safeguarding?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this important debate. I know that we share a common interest in this area. I also congratulate him on bringing a debate about the big picture stuff. It is important that we get there, and I compliment hon. Members for rising to meet that challenge. The United Kingdom is home to Europe’s largest, and one of the world’s most dynamic, technology ecosystems. The digital and technology sector contributes an estimated £207 billion in gross value added to the UK economy and supports around 2.6 million jobs. It represents a vital pillar in our national prosperity that drives productivity, fosters high-skilled employment and enhances our global competitiveness. From artificial intelligence and cyber-security to fintech and advanced manufacturing, British innovation in technology continues to shape industries both at home and abroad. We fully recognise the substantial benefits that large technology companies bring. These firms deliver cutting-edge innovation, significant investment, world-class infrastructure and services that millions of people and businesses rely on every day. Their scale enables rapid advancement in areas such as cloud computing, mobile technologies and data analytics, which in turn support broader economic growth across sectors. At the same time, we must remain vigilant and ensure that market concentration does not inadvertently stifle competition or limit opportunities for emerging British firms. In key areas, a small number of global players hold dominant positions. Together, Apple and Google account for virtually the entire mobile operating system market in the UK, with iOS and Android combined making up nearly 100% of the share. Similarly, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft together command a very significant portion—often estimated at between 60% and 80%—of the UK’s cloud computing infrastructure market. That concentration brings clear efficiencies and capabilities, but it also highlights the need for effective oversight. We support a proportionate competition policy that promotes fairness, encourages new entrants and prevents any single player from abusing market power. Open and competitive digital markets are essential if we are to retain more economic value within the UK, nurture home-grown talent, and build a resilient and diversified digital economy. As Conservatives, we have long championed the importance of robust yet balanced digital competition enforcement. Regulation should protect consumers and smaller innovators without creating unnecessary bureaucratic barriers that slow growth. The Competition and Markets Authority has an important role to play in this regard, alongside evolving frameworks such as the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. Our approach prioritises evidence-based intervention that fosters innovation while maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a place to invest and scale business. This principle extends to other critical areas, including online safety. Timely and decisive action to protect children and other vulnerable users online is essential, and we have constantly advocated for stronger practical safeguards, working alongside parents, campaigners, experts and the industry, because protecting the most vulnerable must remain a priority. The Leader of the Opposition did not flinch from standing with parents and carers when the time came to be robust. Constructive collaboration between Government, technology companies and civil society will achieve better long-term outcomes than purely reactive measures. More broadly, the influence of technology touches every aspect of modern life. From boosting productivity in traditional industries to enabling breakthroughs in healthcare and climate solutions, the sector’s potential is immense. However, realising that potential requires the right conditions: access to talent, supportive infrastructure, access to finance for scale-ups, and a regulatory environment that rewards innovation rather than entrenching incumbents. At its core, this debate asks us to consider what kind of digital economy we wish to build for the future. We believe that Britain should aim for an economy in which a diverse range of innovative companies—from start-ups in our world-class universities and tech clusters to established firms—can compete, grow and deliver benefits to consumers and society on merit. This vision rests on a strong competition policy that prevents the abuse of market power while actively encouraging the investment, dynamism and entrepreneurship that drive long-term growth. We also recognise the global nature of technology. International co-operation on standards, data flows and emerging issues such as artificial intelligence will be increasingly important. The UK’s position as a leading tech nation gives us influence on the world stage, and we should use that influence to promote open markets, ethical innovation and high standards. The success of our technology sector is central to delivering the economic growth and opportunity that our country needs. By championing competition, supporting innovation and maintaining a balanced approach to regulation, we can ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of the global digital economy, creating jobs, driving prosperity and harnessing technology for the benefit of all. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks on the Government’s current thinking regarding the role of large technology companies, and on how together we can best support a thriving, competitive and innovative UK tech sector.

My hon. Friend is talking about the future of warfare, and this issue was very much raised when we attended Space-Comm earlier this year: how the delay in the DIP is affecting our ability to keep up with advancing space technology. Does he agree that this is an important point, and that the Government should set a space strategy, as the previous Government did in 2022?

It speaks to the timeliness of this debate that so many people want to contribute. On that specific point, my local authority of Bromley does very well cleaning up fly-tipping, but it is sometimes a bit hamstrung because the waste is tipped on to housing association land. Residents perceive that to be the council’s responsibility, but it cannot do anything about it. Does the hon. Member have any thoughts about that?

On Friday, I visited HMP Wandsworth with the Chess in Schools and Communities scheme. I saw its work to teach chess in prisons, which is also great for teaching resilience, patience and team working. May I send the hon. Member some information about what Chess in Schools and Communities does? It may be useful in the institution that she is talking about.

Although there are no proposals the size of a city in my constituency, there is a proposal to build thousands of new homes on the green belt in Hayes. Does my hon. Friend agree that this indiscriminate building on the green belt threatens communities and is swamping public services as well?

In the context of the armed forces covenant and all the great work it does for military families, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Royal British Legion also does important work in this regard? Will he join me in saying thank you to the Royal British Legion in Hayes, in my constituency, which does so much work for military families as they go about their duties?

My intervention is about the age for access being lowered to eight years old. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us on what assessment has been done of safeguarding. That would make me very happy.

The hon. Gentleman is giving a typically excellent and passionate speech. No person living with dementia should be removed from their family or support network. Does he agree that as the NHS is restructured, there needs to be a proper focus on outcomes for dementia sufferers right across the country?

I recognise the importance of sovereignty, but there are real challenges. How can we deal with the prevalence of, for example, Taiwanese chips in our tech market?

I defer to my right hon. Friend’s superior knowledge in this area. I recognise the value of the asset. Can he reassure me on the concerns about conflicts of interests? Those people holding the seats are also trustees, so they are taking decisions for financial gain. Is he reassured that the process he is suggesting we follow will counter that issue?

It is good to see the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) moving to the right. I pay tribute to members of the armed forces community, who played a big part in this operation; they truly are the best of us. Could the Secretary of State advise us on any actions that are being taken regarding the Russian frigate Admiral Grigorovich, which has been patrolling in English waters for two months without intervention from the Royal Navy?

On devolution, we have to appreciate that the increase in the borrowing limit is underwritten by the whole of the UK economy. I wonder if my hon. Friend knows of any equivalent flexibilities that English local authorities, which are also under huge financial pressures, could use.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing this important urgent question, and suggest that the Minister perhaps shows a touch more humility on this important issue. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would welcome measures to prevent under-16s from accessing harmful social media. After all, it has been our policy for some time, and we are glad that the Government are finally starting to catch up. This Government’s record of kicking the can down the road on children’s online safety contrasts starkly with the action taken by the Conservatives. The last Government brought in the Online Safety Act 2023, which is already cutting the number of children accessing porn. When it became obvious that more needed to be done, the Leader of the Opposition stood alongside parents and campaigners in calling for more. Only then did the Prime Minister leap swiftly into action—by announcing a four-month consultation on an issue so necessary and so blindingly obvious to the rest of us. Let us not forget that just six months ago, the Prime Minister was personally opposed to a ban. Now, with nothing else to show for his time in office, he has performed yet another U-turn and discovered that protecting children was his priority all along. This is not leadership; it is legacy hunting, and thin gruel after so many missed opportunities: the safer phones Bill, the amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, and my noble Friend Lord Nash’s amendment, which was opposed not once, not twice, but three times before the Government finally conceded. Labour constantly voted down the very protections it now says are required. So why now? Is it a genuine epiphany or is it the by-elections, or is it the rather inconvenient fact that a rival from the north has already staked out this ground, leaving the Prime Minister with little choice but to follow? Time and again, this Government have to be forced to do the right thing, and do it only after they have exhausted every other option. However, I do want this to work, so I ask the Secretary of State, via the Minister, three questions. Will these protections extend to existing devices or only to new handsets? If it is the latter, I am concerned that because 90% of 12-year-olds have hand-me-down phones, it will leave the most vulnerable children the least protected—

While there has been talk of the shenanigans of some minor football teams, it would be remiss of me not to mention the mighty Bromley FC, the only English football league club that is blessed with a Conservative MP and that has been crowned the champion of league two—probably as a direct result. At one of my surgeries recently, I met Lorraine and Satvir, who are both Vodafone franchise holders and employ a lot of people in the area. They signed a contract in good faith relating to fluctuation of commission rates, so when Vodafone cut that commission rate by 50%, they were left out of pocket, and they feel that they were treated badly. Can we have a debate to discuss franchising regulations?

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that we continue to protect those greenfield sites, as we do in my constituency and, indeed, as Conservative councils do across the country? Does he agree that it is sad that the Reform candidate for the Mayor of London disagrees and wants to build over some of our precious green-belt land?

Will the hon. Member give way?

I am genuinely listening to the hon. Member’s logical process as he ratiocinates through it. I humbly say that we could set this evidence out in the Privileges Committee. In terms of no pressure whatsoever being exerted—and he is talking about the kinds of pressure exerted that that did not include—could he give examples of the kind of pressures that were not exerted?

Referring to the whiff that the public may pick up, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Prime Minister’s concern could be that the Privileges Committee will deliver a result that he might not like?

I just want to make sure that I can follow the hon. Gentleman’s logical structure. When he said that the Prime Minister said that there was no pressure whatever, he meant that there was no pressure whatever apart from the various types of pressure—is that right?

10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of recent changes to business property relief on levels of investment by family-owned businesses.

I agree with the Minister, of course, that Margaret Thatcher really was the sunny uplands of this country. Small and medium-sized enterprises provide the backbone for our economy in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Many of those businesses are still family owned, suffering from the slew of taxation from this Labour Government. Family Business UK’s analysis, published just last month, said that 57% of businesses are still suffering from the business property relief that, despite the slight U-turn that the Minister alluded to, is still impacting their business. Does the Minister agree that the best way to growth is to support small businesses and not to tax them out of existence?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition. This is my first time responding to a petition debate and I am happy to do so under your chairmanship, Sir. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) on most ably leading the debate, and I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to sign the petition. The previous Conservative Government had a strong record on improving animal welfare standards across the board with measures such as the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which banned the export from Great Britain of live animals, including cattle, sheep and pigs, for slaughter and fattening; the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, which recognised vertebrate animals as sentient beings for the first time; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022, which created new financial penalties for those who commit offences across animal health and welfare against farm animals, zoo animals and pets; and the Glue Traps (Offences) Act 2022, which banned the use of glue traps in England in all but the most exceptional circumstances. The testing of products and medicines on animals has always been an emotive topic, and one on which many people hold extremely strong views, so it is absolutely right that animal testing is heavily regulated. It is clear that there is a national consensus that animals ought to be treated with dignity and respect, and I am pleased that the Government have continued to take the welfare of animals as seriously as the previous Government did. The use of protected animals for any experimental or other scientific procedure that causes “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm” to the animal is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Scientific procedures covered by the Act are controlled using a triple licensing system enforced by the Home Office. That requires a personal licence for the scientific investigator, a licence for the establishment where the procedure is to take place, and a project licence, which contains details of the animals to be used and the procedures to be performed. The Act requires a cost-benefit analysis to be performed, weighing the likely adverse effects on the animals against the scientific learning arising from the procedure. The UK has a policy to limit the number of animals used in science through replacement, reduction and refinement of research design—the three Rs. That requires licence applicants to demonstrate that they have considered using non-animal alternatives as far as possible. Moreover, under existing legislation, the use of animals in research is prohibited if there is a non-animal method available that could be used instead. Put simply, animals can be used in research only when no alternative methods are available. In 2024, 2.6 million scientific procedures involving living animals were carried out in Great Britain. Of the animals used in those procedures, 73% were mice. That figure seems huge, but it must be recognised that it is 37% lower than the recent peak of 4.1 million in 2015. That is a welcome development, but more work definitely needs to be done. It has been hugely valuable to hear the range of views of those who have taken part in this very constructive debate, and I thank all Members for their contributions. There were lots of passionate interventions —in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) gave us particular food for thought on the testing of botox—but let me focus on the substantive contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) did his job as a local MP and visited a lab to give us an understanding of the scenario. It is difficult for us to think about what goes on in there, and we thank him for setting that out for us. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talked about the pragmatic approach to testing, but also about an aggressive and urgent push to move to alternative processes as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) stressed that, especially in an area as important as this one, ambition is not enough, and that a strategy needs to be implemented urgently. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) spoke about the ethics involved and showed that, while animals may not have a voice, hon. Members can provide one for them—and she did so extraordinarily well. The hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) talked about the possibility of using AI to replace experimentation, and about not being anti-science, but using better science. The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) reminded us of the deep relationships that we can have with animals. I do hope that his slippers are returned very soon. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) developed the theme of our relationship with animals and told us of his conversations with cats. Nobody has ever won a debate with a cat, and we could use some of that feline tenacity in pushing this issue through. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) again stressed the need to move to modern alternatives, and that was also highlighted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance). The hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) raised important questions about licensing and enforcement, and the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) raised important questions about morality. The hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about how the mark of a civilised society is treating animals well—I concur. Let me stress that the Conservatives are keen to support any work that aims to accelerate the point at which animal research and testing is no longer necessary, having been fully replaced by effective alternatives whenever possible. I welcome that the Government have published a road map for phasing out animal testing. While we support its broad aims, there are concerns, such as that life sciences’ research and investment could move overseas to countries that test on animals to far lower standards. At this point, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers). Concern arises because regulators have set out that certain products still require animal testing. Medicines, drugs and vaccines are manufactured for sale around the world, and companies can move their operations to places where the ethical and clinical regulations around animal testing are much laxer. I ask the Minister to address that point. On the timeline for the Government’s road map, will the Minister set out how the 2030 target for a 35% reduction in the use of dogs and non-human primates is backed up by alternative methods? Is that actually achievable? How do the Government plan to report to the House on whether the milestones are being met, and what happens if alternative methods are not validated in time? The goal of seeing no animal suffer needlessly in a laboratory is one that we all share, but that vision is not enough on its own. If we move too slowly, we betray the millions of people who rightly find the continued use of animals in laboratories morally unacceptable, but moving too fast, without validated alternatives, risks both patient safety and the very sector that funds the research on which we all depend. We will continue to ask those questions of the Government and hold them accountable for their actions.

Today, vigils are being held across Westminster for the 22 women who are diagnosed with lobular breast cancer every day, and I think we are privileged to say that some of those extraordinarily brave women are in the Gallery this afternoon. When I raised this issue with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, she promised to take action and not just commit words, so will the Prime Minister today commit to the Lobular Moon Shot Project’s plan to fund lobular breast cancer?

One area that has been talked about is the ability of scrutiny bodies to take decisions, and the challenge in London is that there has to be a two-thirds majority to make a decision. The suggestion was made that this could be changed and be brought in line with other authorities, so that we have simple majority voting. Does the Minister agree that we have missed an opportunity to do that?

Will the Minister give way?

I ask the House to note my relatively recent visit to Gibraltar, which is declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The naval base in Gibraltar is of high strategic importance and the decision to allow the Spanish authorities to monitor equipment going to the British military is highly concerning. Will the Minister guarantee that the treaty will neither directly nor indirectly in any way limit the operations, access or security of the UK naval base?

10. If she will publish a timetable for the implementation of the UK-EU treaty in respect of Gibraltar.

This is probably a useful speech to intervene on, due to my striking resemblance to Tom Cruise. [ Laughter. ] The key point in that scenario was about responsibility. Labour Members are probably lucky that Sadiq Khan has cancelled all the tubes today, otherwise they might be under another transport mechanism. Does this not show more widely that the Prime Minister is failing in his key role, which is to take responsibility for the decisions he is charged to take?

On that point, how does the hon. Lady feel about the funding that TfL offered for the reopening of the bridge? To my mind, as a former member of the London Assembly, it has not been sufficient over the last 10 years.

I welcome the fact that the regulations allow for innovation, and especially things such as vertical take-off and unmanned flights. However, given that Biggin Hill airport is in my constituency, can the Minister say what provisions there are to ensure that local communities in smaller aerodrome areas are communicated with?

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically brilliant speech—the jokes get better each time we hear them. Does he agree that there are other types of provision? My area of interest is space-based solar power provision, which could provide the same sorts of solutions without taking up precious agricultural land.

T5. The Government’s connectivity tool classifies land proposed for development at Biggin Hill and Hayes Farm as equally well connected as the Greenwich peninsula. This is utterly nonsensical. Does the Minister recognise that the Government’s housing targets for the London borough of Bromley are both unfair and unachievable?

Q15. As we move towards the Easter recess, I am sure the Prime Minister’s thoughts are turning to the miracle of resurrection. My constituents have asked me to resurrect something: cash in shops. One in seven shops in the past year has moved to being cashless. That risks leaving behind those on low income or the elderly. Indeed, we heard today about the risk posed to our economic liberty by the move to digital devices, as mobile phones can be lost, stolen or other. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that nobody is left behind in a cashless society?

As ever, my right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the concerns that businesses have is that this policy was not in the Government’s manifesto, so they are now trying to prepare for something that has come as a surprise. There has been no consultation on this levy, so by introducing it now the Government are making a very difficult situation even worse. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is not the best way to help businesses thrive?

24. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

The Secretary of State promised that Great British Energy would lead to a “mind-blowing” reduction in bills. Can he confirm how much the average family has saved as a result specifically of Great British Energy?

I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by hon. and right hon. Members, but I will focus on one specific point: the country’s technological capacity, which is being delayed because of the delay to the defence investment plan. Some 8% of UK GDP—£454 billion—is reliant on satellite services, and the importance of space to our defence, intelligence and security is ever increasing. The previous Government understood that, and set out a clear strategy to make the UK a meaningful actor in space when we published the defence space strategy in 2022. However, the situation has now changed, and this Government are completely failing to grasp the urgency of leveraging our existing commercial capability so that we can operationalise the space domain at pace. Earlier this month, I attended Space-Comm with the shadow Science Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), and it could not be clearer from the conversations I had that Britain is at serious risk of lagging behind our neighbours when it comes to the new space race. Countries such as Germany have recognised the opportunities, with a commitment to invest €35 billion. We must match that ambition. Another point that came up time and again was that the missing defence investment plan impacts on our ability to encourage new people into the sector. The Government promised that it would be published in the autumn of last year, yet we are still waiting. However, given that their strategic defence review was late and kicked big procurement decisions down the road, it is no real surprise that the DIP is late too. The Government simply have no evidenced plan to hit 3% of GDP on defence, and this is leaving our domestic defence and space industry in the lurch. Many companies tell me that they have plans that are ready to go, but they cannot action them without the publication of the defence investment plan. This kind of paralysis will only serve to see us fall even further behind our neighbours. I know that the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is currently not in his place, cares about the investment in our armed services and takes it deeply personally—as does the Minister for Veterans and People—and I put on the record my personal respect for him. I would hope that he would agree with the Conservatives on the urgency with which we need to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP by the end of this Parliament. I hope that the Government will make the same commitment; otherwise, we will lose the opportunity to lead and develop the technologies that will take us to the new scientific and defence frontier.

T3. During the recent London elections, Sadiq Khan made a manifesto pledge not to close Bromley’s 24-hour police counter, so Bromley’s 24-hour police counter is obviously now closed. Does the Minister think that the closure of this vital service is good for my constituents or the safety of the community?

Given that the individual grants can exceed £30 million and are monitored for only 10 years, if a company, say, relocates to another country or fails to deliver over that period, is there any mechanism for the Government to claw back some of that money?

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech, and I empathise with her, because communities in Biggin Hill in my constituency are also completely without a railway station. Although the distance to Biggin Hill is 12 miles as the crow flies, it takes an absolute age to get there. Does she agree that such communities need to be served by efficient bus services, which are just as important?

A particularly pressing issue of concern is youth unemployment, which has skyrocketed to record levels on Labour’s watch, with the unemployment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds at nearly 16%. Failing the youth of this country is tantamount to abandoning our future. It is because of the political choices made by this Government that young people are struggling to secure employment. We have the lowest graduate recruitment levels on record and 700,000 graduates on benefits. To make matters worse, far too many of those who can find employment are then stuck in an endless cycle of student debt, while taxpayers have to pick up the tab for those who will never be able to fully repay the balance and write off their loans. I have been contacted by many graduates in Bromley and Biggin Hill who are deeply concerned about the freeze on student loan repayment thresholds. They see it as an unfair decision that heaps additional financial pressure on graduates, who are already struggling with the rising cost of living. In a sense, it changes the rules for graduates after the fact. For many, what was meant to be an investment in education and the future workforce now creates a sense of permanent debt, rather than a manageable contribution based on the ability to pay. This cannot go on, or we will risk undermining trust in the student finance system altogether. The Conservatives have a plan: a clear new deal for young people—a step-by-step plan to fix what the Government are making worse. It is a plan that I fully support and that would be of huge benefit to young people in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Under our plan to abolish real interest rates on plan 2 student loans, we will ensure that student loan balances never rise faster than RPI inflation. For example, a doctor at Princess Royal university hospital in Bromley in 2029 with £80,000 of student debt would save £58,000 in lifetime repayments and clear their loan sooner. A graduate in Bromley with £40,000 of student debt and on a salary of £50,000 would save £26,000 in lifetime repayments and would clear their loan five years faster than under the current system. It is only the Conservatives who will end the unfair interest rises, fund 100,000 more apprenticeships and encourage young people into work with a £5,000 first job bonus. We have a plan to restore aspiration for young people; the Government are failing them.

My constituents have borne the brunt of Labour’s slew of anti-motorist policies. The impending rise in fuel duty is yet another attack on Bromley motorists. Some 80% of households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van—significantly higher than the Greater London average—and driving is often a necessity for my constituents, particularly in Biggin Hill, where public transport is unreliable. Driving charges in London can now cost up to £40 a day, but it is even more for van drivers. That is a direct result of the policies of the Labour Government and Sadiq Khan. A rise in fuel duty will increase that cost further. In April last year, Sadiq Khan imposed a new toll on the Blackwall tunnel. For car drivers using it at peak times, the toll is £8 a day for a trip across the river and back. For van drivers, the bill is £13. The toll also means that there is now only one free crossing east of Tower bridge, at Rotherhithe. That comes on top of Labour’s expansion of the ultra low emissions zone, and the congestion charge, fuel costs and parking charges. It is becoming simply impossible for people to drive to work in London. That affects everyone who needs to drive, from tradesmen to NHS shift workers. When I was a London Assembly member, I worked to expose Mayor Khan’s preparations for road pricing in London, which London Centric fully exposed late last year. Under Labour’s plans, motorists could be charged 40p per mile for driving in outer London, 60p per mile in inner London, and £2 per mile, with a £5 fee, for central London. The mayor has repeatedly denied that he plans to introduce such pay-per-mile pricing, but the Government’s decision to introduce a pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles is exactly the sort of cover that he needs to introduce it. I can reassure my constituents that I remain steadfastly against pay-per-mile pricing. Naturally, my constituents were furious to hear the Chancellor announce that, from April 2027, the fuel duty freeze, which has been in place for 16 years, will be scrapped—along with the 5p cut that the previous Government put in place—and that fuel duty will begin to rise with the retail prices index. As prices at the pump spike as a result of the conflict in Iran, the argument for retaining the fuel duty relief introduced by the previous Government, to support cash-strapped motorists, is even stronger. In Bromley and Biggin Hill we do not have the London underground or the docklands light railway, and Biggin Hill does not even have a railway station, so people are highly reliant on cars. The Labour party, here and in City Hall, needs to understand that. The Government and the Mayor of London must end their war on motorists, and scrap their fuel duty rise and any plans for further attacks on motorists, before it is too late.

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. She should know that, on 22 April, vigils will be held across Westminster for the 22 women diagnosed with this insidious disease every day. I thank her for that commitment to work with the Health Secretary between now and then so that we can highlight this issue. Will she agree to come back to the House and update us on the comments and discussions that she has had with the Secretary of State for Health?

I am asking this question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), the shadow Secretary of State, who cannot be here today, but wants the House to know how important this issue is to her. The lobular moon shot project is a plan to fund critical research into lobular breast cancer. It is a disease often missed by screening and with no targeted treatment. A total of 463 Members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition, support this plan. The Health Secretary says that there is no political disagreement on this, yet nothing has materially happened. His Department now says that it is for DSIT and UK Research and Innovation to comment on budget allocations and spending research priorities. I ask the Secretary of State this: is the moon shot project a research priority for her, as it is for 463 of her parliamentary colleagues?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) on securing this important debate. Like all Members here, I have received a significant amount of correspondence from constituents—by email, I hasten to add—who are concerned about the performance of Royal Mail. To be clear, I do not lay the blame at the feet of the posties; their hard work, day in and day out, is vital. However, delivery delays are having a huge impact on my constituents’ lives, and I will raise some of their concerns today. I have had numerous reports of areas in Bromley and Biggin Hill that my constituents receive only one delivery of letters a week, while parcels seem to be delivered with no delays. When letters do arrive, they are bundled together—sometimes a week’s worth in one go. One constituent even described a Christmas card being delivered three months late. I appreciate that not all letters are time sensitive, but an issue of particular concern that has been raised by other hon. Members is whether NHS appointment letters are lost or delayed. One lady preparing for an ophthalmology appointment expected to receive a letter in advance to explain what she needed to do to prepare, but it arrived after the appointment. Another of my constituents explained that her husband was recently referred for a CT scan, and subsequently heard nothing about when the appointment was scheduled for. When they phoned the hospital, they discovered that a letter with an appointment date was sent to them four months previously. They never received that letter, so they naturally did not keep the appointment. Bromley and Biggin Hill is not in the middle of nowhere. It simply should not be the case that my constituents are waiting for weeks for letters to be delivered. I hope that the Minister can provide some clarity on what can be done to ensure my constituents receive the service they deserve and need from the Royal Mail.

As my hon. Friend knows, he is also the Member of Parliament for my mother-in-law, so I congratulate him on all his hard work. [ Interruption. ] Check the words: I said nothing wrong. One issue hitting rural areas is, of course, road works, because residents cannot just take the next left or right turn and sometimes have to detour for miles. Does my hon. Friend agree that it behoves the utility companies to keep residents informed of any road works they are doing, so that residents can plan their journeys in advance?

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. We are all here because we have been inundated with issues and complaints about the CMS. One of the things I hear about over and over again is the lack of communication. Does the hon. Member agree that if the CMS got the communication right, some of these disputes might not escalate to the point where they become very troublesome indeed?

The Minister raises the cost factor, and Bromley’s cost factor has been set at 1.038, which is above the average. What work has been done to ensure that authorities such as mine are not impacted by setting the cost factor above the average, in terms of their ability to collect business rates?

I have a list of Government follies here, if the hon. Member would like me to pass them on. In all seriousness, I completely agree with him on the importance of the industry and those jobs, and I am sure that the Minister will pick that up when he responds. To give an example of the issues with these monopolies, Amazon was forced to remove the “Buy book” button from its Kindle app on iPhones because Apple demanded a 30% cut of every e-book sale. Authors simply cannot afford to forgo that 30%. Instead, readers had to—this is absurd—close the Kindle app, log on to the Amazon system separately, complete their purchase and then reopen the Kindle app. It was only thanks to a court case in the United States that forced Apple’s hand that the “Buy book” button returned. Spotify cannot include a “Subscribe” button in its iOS app, nor can it tell users in the app what a subscription costs or that a cheaper option exists outside the app. UK Spotify Premium subscribers have faced three price rises in two years, partly because Apple’s 30% cut has to be absorbed somewhere. Every Spotify user in the UK is paying more, and Apple’s rules are a direct reason why. There are many similar cases in which Apple and Google are inserting themselves directly into the relationship between developers and consumers by forcing developers to use their payment systems. That takes away a consumer’s ability to choose their preferred payment method, causes greater friction when there are issues such as refunds and cancellations, and prevents consumers from properly benefiting from lower prices or discounts. The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in October 2025 that Apple’s payment restrictions were neither necessary nor proportionate for security or privacy purposes. They were designed to eliminate competition. It is as simple as that. It is estimated that removing the restrictions would release £1.75 billion a year that is currently taken from UK developers and consumers, rising to over £4 billion annually by 2029. That money could go back into British engineering, creative content and the next generation of app businesses built and scaled here. We could unleash the true potential of these industries. The ability to remove the restrictions and hand UK app developers back their rights already exists in legislation. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gave the CMA conduct-requirement powers—the ability not just to levy fines, but to mandate specific behaviours. The CMA can end Apple’s and Google’s control over in-app communication, ensuring that developers are free to know their own customers and tell their own customers what their own product costs and where to buy it at the best price. Could the Minister outline the Government’s view on pressing the CMA to issue conduct requirements that protect competition? Another area that we must look at is cloud computing. The UK’s digital economy is underpinned by cloud computing, but cloud has been increasingly monopolised. The CMA’s cloud services market investigation estimated that Amazon Web Services and Microsoft control 70% to 90% of the UK’s cloud computing market. That concentration poses a number of dependency risks, including operational, financial and security vulnerabilities, and restricts market innovation and customer choice. Just months after the Government published their “Chronic risks analysis”, there were three global cloud outages within a matter of weeks. In two of those, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft were directly impacted, highlighting the risks of over-reliance on a limited number of cloud hosts. Governments, businesses, digital platforms, AI services and individuals were materially impacted by the outages, with US companies alone suffering losses of between $500 million and $650 million. Indeed, the recent CrowdStrike outage is estimated to have cost the UK economy between £1.7 billion and £2.3 billion. Competition can be the key mitigation for the UK’s digital dependency and, again, it is the CMA that holds the levers to tackle anti-competitive conduct and address the risks of cloud concentration. I am not calling for more legislation or regulation. We do not need it. With the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, brought in by the last Conservative Government, we have already legislated for stronger digital competition, but slow implementation and weak early enforcement risk squandering a rare pro-growth and pro-SME opportunity. Only a small number of designations have been made so far. For Google’s and Apple’s mobile ecosystems, the CMA has relied on non-binding “commitments” rather than imposing binding conduct requirements. These non-binding commitments have no clear statutory basis under the 2024 Act, carry no legal consequences if breached and are not contemplated anywhere in the CMA’s published guidance. Their use risks weakening the regime and forcing the CMA to restart enforcement if firms fail to comply, which is precisely the outcome that the last Government sought to avoid. It is also concerning that a requirement for Google to negotiate fair terms with news publishers has been pushed back by at least 12 months, despite the CMA having previously committed to use that power in the first half of this year. The Government must reaffirm that robust digital competition enforcement is pro-growth and central to the UK’s industrial strategy. Moreover, the CMA must ensure that there is robust competition enforcement. The levers to achieve that were put there by the last Government; it just requires some political will. Fundamentally, the UK cannot build globally competitive tech firms while a handful of dominant platforms control the routes to market, search, app stores, mobile ecosystems, cloud and key AI infrastructure. The potential for huge economic growth from our tech sector is there, but competition is key. If competition flourishes, we will see more innovation, improved services and lower costs for consumers.

I thank everybody for their contributions. Let me start with the party spokesmen. I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for her wisdom and her towering intellect in recognising the self-evident glamour that is dripping from me even as I stand here—it takes one to know one. As ever, she made informed points—and of course I agree with them, because she is my boss. I thank the Minister for his response. There were many points in it that I agree with and some that I would like to have further conversation on—particularly the points about procurement. That is really important and will become an increasing challenge as we move forward. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), set out a five-point plan that I would struggle to disagree with. In particular, outcomes-focused regulations would ensure that we have proper competition. It was encouraging that all three party spokespeople spoke from an informed and passionate place. That bodes well for the future. I turn to the Back-Bench contributions. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) talked about what a targeted group of engineers can do when they are given the space to flourish. He made some important points about UKRI and how it needs to be reorganised. We recently met the new chief executive, and there is a lot of work to do there, so perhaps the Minister would like to focus on that and push the way that UKRI distributes those funds. I turn to the hon. and gallant Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). I had a quick look on Wikipedia and found out that we were in the same regiment; I did not know that before. I think he was a young second lieutenant when I was a mere legend of history. We will meet afterwards and swap some stories. He highlighted the absurdity of losing potential unicorns—companies that start and can grow here—which are not able to get to the place they need to because there is no incubator for growth. That point was very well made. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about how important access to finance is for the great companies that she highlighted, not just in her constituency but right across Scotland. If there were an injection of capital, we could see some glowing achievements. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) talked about how technology can be used, and he especially focused on climate. We will face problems over the next 10 or 20 years, and we will need to develop that technology, some of which will have to be sovereign technology so that we can face those challenges. Last but never, ever least, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rose to his feet to say that he has many great things to say about Northern Ireland; we all know that Northern Ireland has many great things to say about him. I was amused when the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) asked whether he had spoken to a company in Northern Ireland. He has spoken to everybody in Northern Ireland—twice. He made an important point about how the cyber-security industry has grown in the past 20 to 30 years, and I want to push the Minister gently on that. Something that was highlighted to us at Space-Comm last week was the need to develop the defence investment plan and get it out as quickly as possible. I will not put the boot in, because the debate has been good natured, but a lot of people in industry are really looking for that to be brought forward. I am encouraged by this debate, which has been good natured and well informed. We all agree that if we get this right, with the right focus, we can be a world leader in this industry. We will punch not just above our weight but as technological champions. We have the opportunity to take the UK economy into the second half of the 21st century and beyond. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for UK-based tech companies.

I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for UK-based tech companies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am pleased to have secured this debate. It is hard to measure the true economic value of the technology sector in the UK, but I think we can all agree on the sector’s huge importance for economic growth, productivity and society as a whole. That importance will only grow in the future, so nurturing and supporting our domestic technology sector is vital. To be clear, as a Conservative, I believe in the importance of competition as a driver for innovation and economic growth. To have true competition, we need to challenge monopolies. If our tech sector is to thrive in the future, competition is vital; otherwise, we will see innovative firms leave the UK. Today I will focus particularly on our domestic app ecosystem. The UK’s mobile app ecosystem generates £28 billion annually in gross value added—equivalent to nearly 1% of GDP. It also supports around 400,000 jobs: the highest number in any country in Europe. However, despite that huge contribution to our economy, app developers face significant challenges. Apple and Google control 95% of all mobile operating systems in the UK, and the Competition and Markets Authority formally designated them with strategic market status in October 2025. That does not mean that Apple and Google just run the app stores; they have control over far more than that. Those companies can control what developers can say within apps, block developer communications with consumers, hide customer details from developers and prevent them from telling users when something is new, better or cheaper—all the while taking up to 30% of every transaction. That not only stifles the sector domestically, but pushes up prices for ordinary consumers and drives British innovation overseas. We simply cannot afford to allow such a growing industry to be lost.

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and I congratulate him on bringing it to the Chamber today. On our joint bonds, I represent Bromley and Biggin Hill, and RAF Biggin Hill played a crucial part in the second world war when it was stocked full of pilots from the Commonwealth, so it is not just political or economic bonds but desperation and fighting for freedom that bind us together.

I welcome that the strategy acknowledges that antisemitism, an increasingly concerning issue, is being normalised in many corners of society. Indeed, 2025 saw the second highest annual total ever recorded for anti-Jewish hate incidents, at 3,700. What action is the Secretary of State taking to protect the Jewish community from those who may see Israel’s involvement in Iran as an excuse to attack British Jews?

To enhance my right hon. Friend’s point, I have been running a survey in my constituency and the vast majority of respondents and parents have said that they support the concept of a simple age limit on social media, because of these particularly harmful algorithms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the responsible thing for all of us in this House to do is to support our party’s policy of keeping our children safe by putting an age limit on social media?

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. I think we all here agree that we need to do more to ensure that those with type 1 diabetes get the support they need. While we are here, does she share my concern that 90% of people diagnosed with diabetes are diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and the total cost of that care in the UK is about £11 billion? Alongside the important support that we give to those with type 1 diabetes, we should be doing more and taking action to ensure that people do not develop type 2.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Sir Alec. With NHS England set to be abolished, how does the hon. Member suggest the Government ensure that awareness for testing for type 1 diabetes continues? Does she agree that it should not be left to fall by the wayside or be picked up by organisations such as Diabetes UK?

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification; it will save me some time, as I was going to spend all weekend texting him. We have heard about the real issues to do with mobile phone connectivity and how it is impacting people. Based on commercial mapping of 113 local council areas across the UK, EE offers acceptable coverage in only 69% of the UK. For Vodafone the figure is 61%, for O2 it is 50% and for Three it is 38%. The Minister who previously had responsibility for this area engaged with Ofcom on improving data collection standards to get a more accurate picture of 4G coverage. That resulted in Ofcom launching its online coverage checker in June 2025, incorporating some improvements. The need to ensure that everyone has reliable mobile phone coverage is becoming ever more pressing, as public services are increasingly digitised. The last Government recognised the need to tackle non-commercial barriers to the roll-out of digital infrastructure by amending planning legislation. However, as planning is a devolved matter, standards are not consistent across the four nations, so what discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on this matter? On 5G roll-out, the Conservative Government set a target of nationwide coverage of stand-alone 5G for all populated areas of the UK by 2030. The development of this infrastructure has been market-led, and commercial investment has achieved 5G coverage from at least one operator over approximately 65% of the UK landmass. In December, the Government launched their call for evidence on reforming planning rules to accelerate the deployment of digital infrastructure. The call for evidence is due to end on 26 February. Given the urgency of this matter, when does the Minister expect to be able to update the House on the outcome of the call for evidence and the Government’s proposals for planning reform? Touching briefly on broadband, I welcome the publication of the draft statement of strategic priorities yesterday, and I know that businesses will appreciate the clarity that it has provided. The continuation of the Conservatives’ commitment to competition is welcome, and it is important, as the telecoms market consolidates and the Competition and Markets Authority watches over the process, that competition is actively upheld to reduce consumer costs and continue improving services. There is clearly cross-party agreement that we need to do more to ensure that rural areas have improved connectivity, and I hope that the Minister will engage constructively with all Members who have contributed to the debate in order to achieve this.

It is sad, but with Valentine’s day just around the corner, perhaps there is the opportunity to reconnect. [ Interruption. ] It is my first time as a Front Bencher! It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who is having similar issues with Vodafone. Can I suggest that she takes a leaf out of my hon. Friend’s book and kidnaps one of its Government relations people? Maybe she will get her way that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), as ever, was on the front foot serving her constituents with her mobile survey, highlighting the issue of digital isolation and the impact it can have on mental health. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) talked about the impact on online banking and how, with the closure of front counters, we need that connectivity to keep these services alive. That was echoed by the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who talked about the impact on real people. I was sad to hear that for my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove to take a text message, he has to run upstairs and hang out of a window to get reception. Now that I know that—

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members for their valuable contributions. The previous Conservative Government understood the importance of UK-wide mobile and broadband coverage to the public and to our economy. That is why they put in place ambitious plans to ensure that people across the United Kingdom have access to this essential infrastructure, regardless of their location. The shared rural network, announced in 2020, secured significant investment of around £500 million from the largest mobile network operators. Under the SRN, private investment is complemented by Government funding for the construction of masts in the most underserved locations, with additional coverage provided by the emergency services network programme. For 4G, the Conservative Government set a target of 95% geographic coverage from at least one mobile network operator by the end of 2025. By January 2025, 30 Government-funded mast upgrades went live, enhancing local connectivity without erecting new masts. According to Ofcom, as of July 2025, 96% of the UK landmass had 4G coverage from at least one operator, exceeding the previous Government’s target. I am proud of the Conservative Government’s record of delivery under the SRN and I welcome the fact that this Government maintain the coverage commitments made under the scheme. Despite the progress made up to this point, there are still some acute challenges, as we have heard from Members today. My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) talked about the reality of living in rural areas with poor coverage, which was echoed by the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), and the impact it has, especially on farmers. He also made an important point about the switch from 2G and 3G to 4G and not rushing that process. The hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) must let us know if Ofcom takes up her generous offer to come and visit. Knowing how beautiful Ely is, it would be mad not to do so. I was very sad to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) had split up with Vodafone.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate. Let me start by expressing my agreement with colleagues from outer London. Local authorities are in a perilous position, and have been for some time, due to Governments of all stripes. As a former council deputy leader and cabinet member for children’s services, I really do understand. I also believe that Members from inner London will benefit from an enhanced appreciation of the specific struggles those of us in outer London face. I want especially to raise the devastating impact of unfair funding on my borough of Bromley. Bromley has the third lowest settlement funding per head among London boroughs. As a result of the Government’s provisional settlement, Bromley will see funding reductions of £6.5 million in 2026-27, rising to £22.2 million per annum by 2028-29. That equates to over £30 million per year in real-terms funding reductions by 2028-29. If the Government’s funding were fair, Bromley would instead be receiving a funding increase. Indeed, if Bromley received the average London core grant funding in 2026-27, it would gain about £112 million extra—an enormous figure. Any cuts to our funding are felt more keenly than by other councils, too. Bromley maintains the lowest net expenditure per head in London while delivering efficient services for its residents, limiting our ability to realise significant savings compared with other, high-cost authorities. Effectively, the Government are punishing Bromley for being an efficient, well-run council, while Government after Government bail out failing councils. Bromley deserves better. Bromley is no stranger to being targeted. The mayor’s precept currently stands at just over £490 for a band D property—a more than 77% increase since Sadiq Khan became Mayor of London. Before anybody highlights inflation, a rise in line with inflation would have brought the precept to just over £380, an increase of 39% rather than the 77% that has been inflicted on us. What do people in the inner-London boroughs get? A regular and extensive bus service and a tube network to their doorstep. What do the people of Bromley get? Poor transport infrastructure and a mayor who keeps coming back to siphon more and more money from our borough, close our 24-hour police desk and fleece motorists with increased congestion charges and an expanded ultra low emission zone charge. Outer London is subsidising inner London’s transport network, while Bromley is served by only two direct bus routes into central London, both of which only run after midnight. If we are going to have to continue to pay into the mayor’s coffers, will he or she at least ensure that the Superloop is extended a mere 2 miles to run from Bromley North via Plaistow Green, and can we please keep our 24-hour police desk? The situation in which Bromley and the rest of outer London is simply ignored by the Government and this mayor cannot continue. We deserve fairer funding. Bromley council wants to work with the Government, but the Government need to listen so that we see a truly fair and sustainable settlement that does not punish boroughs like Bromley.

I thank the Minister for the objective way that she is tackling this debate, but the reality for the London borough of Bromley is a £22 million cut over the next three-year period. Thinking about the deprivation and the challenges that we have, including the second-highest number of education, health and care plans in London, the cut will have a significant impact on our residents, despite pushing council tax as high as we can.

Will the Minister give way?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) for securing this important debate. The Government promised to strengthen neighbourhood policing. We have heard many well-intentioned but sadly empty words from Labour Members as their actions in London fall far short of the mark. Nowhere did they tell Londoners during the mayoral or general elections that they would cut £260 million from London’s police service, and yet that is exactly what they are doing. Bromley might be one of the safest boroughs in London, but our town centres and villages still face acute policing challenges, from antisocial behaviour and shoplifting to car theft and burglary. We are simply not receiving the policing resources our community needs to tackle the issues. Together with the £22 million funding cut for Bromley council, my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill are being unfairly punished by this callous Government. As part of Mayor Khan’s sweeping cuts to the Metropolitan police, he is closing all but two of the 24-hour police counters across London. In doing so, he is breaking his manifesto promise to retain at least one 24-hour front counter in each borough—just as, incidentally, he is breaking his promise to protect the green belt. Bromley, despite being a major town centre with a busy nightlife, is one of the areas set to lose its round-the-clock police station service. On the evening of 23 March, lights will be turned off at Bromley’s police station. It will be a huge blow for public safety, further undermining confidence in the Met and hindering our brave police officers from doing what they do best, which is keeping our people safe. Regardless of the outcome of any changes, I will keep fighting this closure all the way. If we do not stand up and say, “Enough is enough,” Sadiq Khan will break more manifesto promises and come back for even bigger cuts to policing in Bromley. It is clear that our town and city centres are not safe under Labour.

I know that my hon. Friend is talking specifically about businesses and enterprises, but on that last point, the decisions taken by the Government are also impacting charitable institutions. Indeed, I have met some in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill that are having to let charitable staff go, which is having a further impact on the NHS.

Last week I was lucky enough to host a roundtable with some SMEs from Bromley, including the excellent Martin from the Crown and Anchor. They said to me that this Government’s policies, including the jobs tax, are restricting their ability to grow and to hire young people. Would my hon. Friend agree that abolishing business rates would give small businesses the boost that they need to thrive?

More than 80% of households in Bromley and Biggin Hill have at least one car or van—a figure significantly higher than the average in Greater London—so the decision to remove the 5p fuel duty reduction hits them particularly hard. This is the latest in a slew of measures against motorists, including increased congestion charges and the ultra low emission zone charge, which is really hitting them in the pocket. Why does the Labour party continue to use motorists as a cash cow?

A merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last month, at my surgery in Bromley, I spoke to my constituent Rhonda Josephs, whose 11-year-old son Alexander has been diagnosed with a brain tumour. His ongoing care is currently spread across five hospitals, leading to delays in communication between different teams and increased stress on Alexander and his family. My constituent feels that transferring her son’s care to Great Ormond Street, where everything can happen under one roof, would be the most sensible option. However, that has been rejected. Can we please have a debate on ensuring joined-up care in the NHS so that we do not see more such cases putting undue stress on patients, particularly young children, and their families?

5. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the extended producer responsibility scheme on the hospitality sector.

Mr Speaker, I would never forget to wish you and your exemplary staff a merry Christmas—I thank the Minister for the reminder. The British Beer and Pub Association has estimated that because of EPR, the cost to brewers just for glass bottles alone is somewhere near £124 million annually. That is the equivalent of a 12% rise in beer duty. This, coupled with the Government’s disastrous jobs tax, is leaving pubs in my constituency in a perilous position, wiping out any profit on a bottle of beer. What will the Minister do to resolve this issue and other issues around EPR, to help protect the nearly 1,000 jobs in the 36 pubs across Bromley and Biggin Hill?

I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate—and, as somebody who shares a house with a Newcastle fan, I thank him for a miserable weekend. It is important that we get the safety elements and aspects of the Online Safety Act correct, but does he agree that it should not be used as a blunt tool to stifle freedom of speech online?

Childnet has discovered that there has been increased downloading of VPNs by children over the last three months, as adolescents use them to circumvent age verification processes. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) said—I presume he was referring to the Open Rights Group. I just had a quick look at the research, and although it says that it is not the youngest children who do that, it is children from the age of 13 up, so these are vulnerable adolescents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the Online Safety Act to be successful, the use of VPNs has to be examined further?

It was troubling to hear—unless I misheard the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith)—that the Secretary of State can talk with exactitude about the future of welfare spending, but not of defence spending. I remind him that the last time a Government spent 3% on defence was in 1996, and it was a Conservative Government. He is eloquent, but I would like him to be exact. When specifically—in which financial year—can we expect to hit 3% on defence spending?

9. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of Exchequer on meeting the NATO target of 5% of GDP on defence expenditure.

I welcome the statutory instrument, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that this is about ensuring not just the future of the free press and editorial independence, but the financial stability of the industry? It is vital that any state-owned investors do not deter legitimate investment or the capital investment that the news industry needs.

T5. I have recently been contacted by constituents who are concerned that local jobcentres are not doing enough to get people back into work. What more can the Minister do to ensure that sufficient support and training help people back into employment?

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the thousands of people across Bromley and Biggin Hill who signed the petition that at a time of rising taxation and spiralling debt, the fact that the Government cannot even tell us how much this wretched device will cost exemplifies their irresponsible approach to our economy?

I recently heard from Bill Perera, who runs a franchise of McDonald’s in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill. He runs nine restaurants and employs nearly 800 people, 70% of whom are aged 16 to 24. He wants to increase this pathway and opportunity into employment for young people, but he is finding it increasingly difficult, because of the increased national insurance contributions. Does the Minister agree that one way to reduce unemployment would be to reverse this disastrous policy?

22. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

I will happily give way—the hon. Gentleman wins the prize.

Well played! That was very good, and of course I agree. I used to work with Toby Granville, so I know him well. I think that sets the tone for a lot of the interventions that will come during this speech. Where was I? Line two: I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given. Why? Because all hon. Members present will wish to pop up to record their love for their local newspaper, be it the Watford Observer , The Oxford Times , the Farnham Herald —

I do agree. That has been happening in local media since the invention of Facebook, which I will come to later. Across the UK, local journalism attracts 42 million readers each week. It is the first port of call, be it print or digital in format, for communities who value a trusted source of information. While some formats may have changed from print to pixel, the trust in local brands has not, but the sector faces challenges, including the rapidly evolving digital environment, engagement with Government and public notice funding, and the conversation around a new relationship with the BBC.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will get to as I develop my speech. I also have to declare an interest: I spent the majority of my working life in local news. Even as a child, I delivered copies of the local Guardian around south London. My first “proper” job was at the South London Press . Back in those days, we sold two paid-for editions each week and delivered numerous free titles across south London. Later, I spent nearly 10 years with Newsquest, with its huge footprint across the UK. I still write a monthly column for the Bromley News Shopper , our local oracle. The News Shopper dates back to 1965 and counts Norris and Ross McWhirter as former contributors. Indeed, it was deemed such a bastion of information that a young Rupert Murdoch took temporary ownership of it back in 1969.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will touch on the BBC charter later in my comments. Let us start with the digital environment, which the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) referred to. For an industry that relies on advertising revenue, the emergence of platforms such as Facebook fundamentally changed the marketplace. Over time, the industry has learned to adapt and channel-shift to keep pace with the changing news environment, but 20 years on from one epoch-defining technological advancement, we find another. We marvel as we see artificial intelligence developing and becoming the new intermediary between readers and news. This technology can now scrape the internet for information and pump out unchecked, unverified content, which undermines the faith in professional journalism and the financial sustainability of newsrooms. This undercuts the very institutions that produce the content, results in decreasing web traffic, and drains advertising revenue. The Government must act to ensure a fair licensing market, transparency in AI training data and strong backing for the Competition and Markets Authority to level the playing field between publishers and the tech giants. I touched on public notices. These statutory notices in local papers are a cornerstone of democratic accountability, ensuring that residents know about changes that affect them, yet the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill risks removing this requirement and irreparably damaging the public’s right to know. The Government should commit unequivocally to keeping public notices in local papers, especially at a time of major reform in local government. Coming to the role of the BBC, the corporation has made valuable contributions through initiatives such as the local democracy reporting service, but we need to better understand how the relationship between local news and our national broadcaster can work more effectively to ensure that commercial operators are not inadvertently impacted due to BBC overreach.

I of course agree with my hon. Friend. The role that local media plays at the centre of the community is what I will develop during my speech, if I get to the second page. I mentioned the Farnham Herald , which he intervened on, and go on to the Isle of Wight County Press and the Stranraer and Wigtown shire Free Press —all of us have examples of great local newspapers, which are at the heart of our community. We know that what they report matters, because it reflects our communities. While national and regional news have expanded, and the offering has widened, local, trusted news is still the go-to place for residents across our communities.

I entirely agree on that extraordinary story. I think Kevin Sinfield has run further than I have ever driven. The way he has used national, regional and local media to highlight the issue shows the strength and power of media, when harnessed and targeted properly, to have a positive impact. When touching on the BBC, I want to talk about the royal charter, which is now being reviewed. This is the moment to reset the relationship with local media, focusing on collaboration, not competition, and ensuring that commercial newsrooms can thrive. Finally, I come to Government advertising: 80% of UK adults trust the information they see in local media, yet Government campaigns remain heavily skewed towards social platforms, missing millions who rely on print and digital news. Shifting more advertising spend to local publishers would not only improve reach and engagement but strengthen the financial sustainability of the sector. I will draw my remarks to a close, because I wish to give hon. Members as much time as possible to share stories of their local news providers, although many have already done so. I am sure everybody recognises the value of their local title as much as I do the Bromley News Shopper . Although, as politicians, we may not always appreciate being the focus of news, I am sure we all recognise the huge importance of a trusted media source that is from and for the community. With its sharp focus on local issues, scrutiny of key decisions and responsibility for training the next generation of journalists, local journalism is a public good. It informs, scrutinises and binds communities together, but it cannot survive on good will alone. The Government have the tools to act on artificial intelligence, public notices, the BBC and advertising. If we value trusted local journalism, now is the time to secure its future. Finally, by my reckoning, I have said the word “local” 28 times in this speech, because that is the point.

I do not have enough time to thank everybody individually, so please take it that all are thanked and loved, especially the people who gathered outside to beep in support of the Westminster Hall debate. One of my heroes, George Orwell, believed that local journalism should reflect lived experiences, and that it is often overlooked by the national media in what he called a “reporting deficit”. He talked of good journalism being about honesty, clear language and exposing lies, and he used those principles to write “The Road to Wigan Pier”, one of his many great works. Society and civilisation are fragile and, when news can be weaponised, the clarity and trust provided by local media are vital to holding our communities together. I ask the Minister please to remember that and support it. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of local media.

Tell me about it. It remains the go-to place for my constituents across Bromley and Biggin Hill for the news that counts, and that is local news. It is where we go to find out what is happening, what new shops are opening in the high street, what that planning application is that everybody is talking about, or why the heck they have put in that stupid roundabout near Mike’s house. It is the place we go for the things that matter. But times have changed. Since 13-year-old Peter spent his afternoon stuffing numerous leaflets into hundreds of papers ready for delivery in the early ’90s, technology, advertising and expectations have changed. The traditional model of delivering local news has evolved, and that has put real pressure on the industry—note that I say “model”, not the need for local news. In fact, I would argue that in an age of fake news—Mrs Fortune told me not to do an impression when I said “fake news”—and increasing pressures on council services, the need for trusted, informed and relevant local media is more important than ever before, but it is increasingly challenging to deliver it in the traditional paper format. A newspaper sliding through the letterbox once a week is simply no longer financially viable, especially with the model that relies on advertising revenue to fund the printing and delivery of the product. That does not remove the need for local news; it just changes the delivery method.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of local media. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, I think for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I will start by giving hon. Members some reassurance: I intend to give way every time someone asks, because I fully expect this to be one of the most intervened on speeches that I have ever given.

Again, the Minister is giving an example of an area in which the Mayor of London’s powers are expanding. The point I tried to make earlier—in an objective, non-political way—was that as the powers of the mayor expand, the power of the scrutiny body needs to expand to match that. Can the Minister reassure me that she heard what I suggested earlier and will take it forward?

I will speak today in support of new clauses 64, 65 and 66, all tabled in my name. As I said on Second Reading, my concern is that the Bill does precious little to strengthen accountability of existing devolved bodies, especially the Greater London Authority. It establishes simple majority voting in combined authorities as the default decision-making process, but does nothing to bring other authorities in line with this new standard. The London Assembly will retain its two-thirds majority requirement. A two-thirds majority has proved impossible to achieve in the London Assembly, which is why no budget or strategy has been amended in 25 years. New clause 64 would abolish the two-thirds majority requirement to amend budgets and strategies. By allowing a simple majority, it would give Assembly members the opportunity to debate changes realistically, bringing mayors back to the table and ensuring proper accountability. Unlike other combined authorities, the Assembly cannot call in mayoral decisions, and London’s 32 boroughs are excluded from decision making; as a result, the mayor does not need to seek consensus, negotiate or even listen to opposing views. In a city the size of London, that effectively alienates and disenfranchises millions of people, leading to disengagement and distrust of London-wide government.

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I have tried hard to ensure that my new clauses are objective and would apply to anybody serving as mayor. If I could be cheeky, I can completely understand why she might not want to limit mayoral powers, being mindful of future ambitions that she might have. New clause 65 would rectify the democratic deficit in London by giving the Assembly the power to direct that the mayor not take proposed decisions while they are under the Assembly’s review and scrutiny. It would also give the Assembly the power to recommend that the mayor reconsider a proposed decision. These powers should be standard for any devolved authority, and would ensure that the views of all Londoners are heard loud and clear by the mayor. The leaders of the 32 London boroughs have made a united cross-party call for a seat at the table as part of the devolution settlement for the capital, and I fully agree with them. New clause 66 would start the process in delivering that new settlement, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on proposed reforms to the London Assembly, including proposals for greater involvement of London borough representatives in GLA decisions. I am firmly of the view that any new model must give the 32 boroughs a voice and a vote in London, so that not only my borough of Bromley but all London boroughs are able to contribute to and challenge decisions that impact them directly. It is right that power is returned to our cities, regions and communities, but this must come with effective scrutiny and accountability of those who hold devolved power. There is a glaring democratic and accountability deficit in London, and anyone who is serious about the success of devolution in London will see that my new clauses are sensible first steps to rectifying that deficit. This is not political in nature. At this point, I note the excellent new clause 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), which also seeks to equalise that democratic deficit. As I said to the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), this is not political—indeed, the very make-up of the GLA means that these new clauses would return power to Assembly members of all parties, as well as empowering London boroughs and local councillors to do the job they were elected to do. I urge the Government to embrace these new clauses, listen to London’s council leaders—the majority of whom are from the Labour party—and ensure that we have a properly accountable mayor in London and in all combined authorities up and down the country. It is difficult to see how anybody could seriously argue for less accountability.

On that point, does my hon. Friend the shadow Minister agree that we need to give some thought to the rise of chatbots and their nefarious activity, especially where they encourage self-harm or encourage children to do worse?

Residents of Northpoint in Bromley have suffered eight years of disruption and uncertainty due to work to replace cladding on their building. There is a case of serious water ingress, and they have now been waiting four months for a response from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to see if any subsequent work can be funded by the aluminium composite material remediation fund. Can we have a debate on how we can protect leaseholders and ensure that they do not suffer disruption like my residents in Bromley?

This is a little parochial to London, but can we ensure that local authorities in London are consulted, along with the Mayor of London, so that their power to decide is not usurped by the mayor?

To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?

I too want to thank the Minister for the Armed Forces, for whom I have huge personal respect. Anyone who wants to take themselves to Wikipedia and have a look through his glittering career will be amazed. I made the mistake of looking earlier and finding out that he was younger than me, which was thoroughly depressing. It is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Remembrance Day marks a significant moment of national unity, and an opportunity to share our deep-seated feelings of gratitude, sorrow and loss, which span generations. We give our thanks for the bravery and dedication of those who have served in our armed forces. I would especially like to remember those from my regiment, and those who served in the wider armoured corps. I vividly remember visiting the battlefield of Villers-Bocage with some of the veterans, and it was deeply moving. I would also like to make special mention of my uncle, Simon Clark, who as a very young man served on HMS Arrow. He marched at the Cenotaph yesterday, and we are all very proud. It would be remiss of me not to mention the huge part that my constituency played in the second world war and the battle of Britain. RAF Biggin Hill, Britain’s most famous fighter station, played a critical role in defending London and the south-east. Despite being officially designated the most bombed station in Fighter Command, the station still saw the departure and return of over 1,000 sorties during the battle of Britain. At the close of the battle, Biggin Hill’s score of enemy aircraft destroyed was just under 600, and Winston Churchill described RAF Biggin Hill as “the strongest link”. I pay tribute to all those who served at RAF Biggin Hill, and to the community who supported them. Bromley borough is home to more than 6,600 veterans—the highest number of any borough in London—and nearly 2,000 of those veterans are my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill. Locally, we are incredibly lucky to have the Hayes Royal British Legion branch. It was established over 90 years ago, and boasts 900 members, who collectively raise thousands of pounds to support serving and ex-serving members of the armed forces and their families. Since its inception in 1919, Remembrance Day has brought our communities together to remember the sacrifice made by all those serving in the UK and Commonwealth armed forces, their families, and others who have given their life in service to our country. It is right that we honour them today, and I am immensely privileged to be able to thank them on behalf of all my constituents in Bromley and Biggin Hill.

Of course I will, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) for securing this debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent speech, much of which I agreed with, especially about using the TfL space. The TfL chairman is Sadiq Khan and, as Mayor of London, he is responsible not only for TfL but for house building in London. If we look at some of his promises in 2016, he said his first priority would be tackling the housing crisis. His first manifesto promised a step change in new housing supply, and that 50% of new homes would be affordable. Here we are nearly a decade later, and he certainly has not delivered that step change. House building has in fact ground to a halt—it is down 73% in London over the past year. The Government have had to step in to water down City Hall’s anti-growth affordability targets, because there is no way of avoiding it: despite Sadiq Khan’s boasts, he has comprehensively failed to build. After nine years at the helm, Sadiq Khan has nothing to show for it. Four fifths of homes built last year, as previously mentioned, were approved under Boris Johnson’s mayoralty. The average home in London cost £483,000 in 2016. Today, it is about £560,000. The average rent cost £1,292 per month in 2016. Today, it is £2,252. As has been discussed, it is not a question of money: Sadiq Khan has been given nearly £9 billion to deliver on housing in London. It is not a question of powers; he has strategic planning powers in London. Instead, it has been about bad policy. His London plan is onerous and expensive to adhere to, and his affordability targets have acted as a tax on house building. The Government know this. Instead of addressing the problem, they are dancing around the issue. They scrapped a mandated review of the London plan after independent experts found it to “frustrate rather than facilitate” building on the brownfield sites that my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup discussed. The Government have cut the community infrastructure levy but kept the more expensive mayoral levy. Instead of taking powers away from the failing mayor they are rewarding him, giving him power to call in developments of 50 homes on green-belt sites. Instead of removing the obstacles to building on brownfield sites they are weakening green-belt protections.

I agree with my right hon. Friend. It is worth re-emphasising that the mayor has had responsibility for delivering housing in London for nine years and has fundamentally failed to deliver on his promises. On weakening green-belt protections, which matters so much to those of us representing outer London boroughs, it is a bizarre decision to effectively block building on vacant former industrial sites in inner London near tube stations, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, and instead force thousands of homes on to poorly served farmers’ fields in Bromley. If the Government want to meet their housing targets, they need to realise that Sadiq Khan is not a builder—he is a blocker, and the record proves it.

My wonderful constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill is also home to many SMEs, and they tell me that they are being punished because of the irresponsible decisions taken by this Labour Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?

My constituency has nearly 5,000 SMEs, all of which are facing increasing business rates and taxes, threatening jobs and growth. Will the Minister signal his support for SMEs by following the Conservative party’s lead and completely abolishing business rates for pubs and restaurants on the high street?

The Mayor of London is making £260 million of cuts to the Metropolitan police, axing 1,700 police officers and staff, removing officers from schools and magistrates courts, and now closing Bromley police station’s front counter overnight. That breaks his manifesto pledge to protect London’s police stations. Given that the Government promised to strengthen neighbourhood policing, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the impact of Sadiq Khan’s policy and police cuts in London?

I agree with my hon. Friend strongly that the regulation will impact clubs both large and small, such as Bromley FC in my constituency. The financial impact will be quite onerous, with very little benefit. Would my hon. Friend agree that we should have a review of the impact of the regulator on smaller clubs such as Bromley?

Will the Minister give way?

Talking about the difference between the public and private sectors, does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply concerning that, at a time of rising taxation and increasing Government debt, this Government cannot even tell us how much a digital ID scheme would cost?

I send my condolences to Chris and his family. Over the past five years, Bromley council has planted around 5,000 street trees and another 800 in parks, all working with residents and schoolchildren. Does my right hon. Friend agree that other local authorities could look to Bromley council for best practice in maintenance?