Luke Akehurst
MP for North Durham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I add to the tributes to Sir George Howarth. All of us who served with him on the Labour party’s national executive committee very much admired his courage in taking on and rooting out antisemitism. I welcome the success of our forces in the middle east in counter-UAS work during the recent conflict there.”
“I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?”
“Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey); the promoted Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones); and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon.”
“Russia could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility. I appreciate that I have taken quite a lot of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see you indicating that I should wind up.”
“I know that it behoves Members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from. I understand the political point the Opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding.”
“However, when compared with the immediate need to keep our country safe, it is hard to see why those projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit that they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the near future.”
The complete record
Every one of 349 lines we hold for Luke Akehurst, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 7.
“If we believe in the importance of protecting state pensioners—a belief we have backed up with real money out of the door—why should we not apply the same standard to defined benefit pension schemes? Steve is just one example of someone being short-changed by this anomaly. My hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Blaydon and Consett, for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), along with others, have all been advocating for constituents involved in the dispute with the Nissan pension scheme. I also pay tribute to my hon.”
“Steve, who I have met, started working for Nissan in 1985, meaning that a considerable amount of his pension contributions were made before the 1997 cut-off. He retired in January 2016. Since his retirement, consumer price index inflation has totalled 40.3%, while Steve’s pension has increased by only 8.3%, the minimum legally required for his post-1997 contributions. In real terms, Steve’s pension has decreased by a staggering 32.5% in just nine years. Meanwhile, the state pension has increased by 48% since 2016, when Steve retired. We are right to be proud of the increases to the state pension we have delivered, including £575 this year for the new state pension.”
“However, the most common long-term target for a pension scheme is buying out with an insurer, an outcome that takes decisions of that nature out of the hands of trustees. When a scheme is bought out, trustee discretion disappears entirely, meaning that without legislative reform, thousands of pensioners will lose even the faint hope that the trustees might give them an increase. Given that the Government have made clear their desire to put more power into the hands of trustees of pension schemes, I would appreciate if the Minister could set out whether the Government have made any assessment of that risk, and whether they intend to take any action to benefit those pension holders affected by insurer buy-out. To illustrate the financial impact of this injustice, I will tell the House about a constituent of mine.”
“Friend and neighbour the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who also has many constituents working there, agrees. Not only has Nissan employed people, it has provided jobs deep into the supply chain. Given its status in the region as a very much admired employer, it is a real shame that it seems to be forgetting that its success, bringing employment and regeneration to the north-east over the past 40 years, comes from its loyal workforce. These cost-saving exercises on the pension scheme are no way to treat employees who have worked so hard and deserve a decent retirement. Crucially, discretion over what increases pension holders receive currently lies with the trustees.”
“Worst of all, this change was not even directly communicated with pension holders. My constituents knew about what is frankly an accounting trick only as they noticed their pension increasing by less than anticipated over the years. Because of that, I hope the Minister is able to set out what the Government’s position is on which part of these kinds of pensions should be paid out as a lump sum. Will he work to protect pensioners from quirks of sum calculation being used to deny them the increases that they need to keep up with the change in the cost of living? I want to recognise that Nissan is otherwise an excellent employer and a hugely important contributor to our regional economy in the north-east and, indeed, to the British manufacturing industry as a whole. I am sure that my hon.”
“That money is vital to kick-starting retirement, allowing people to pay off their mortgages and other major debts or make major purchases when they first become pensioners. However, the split between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensions means that this scheme, which should be hugely beneficial for those retiring, can be and is being used against them. The Nissan pension scheme has been paying out its lump sums from those parts of people’s pension funds where the payments would have increased with inflation and leaving in their pension pot the pre-1997 part where the benefits will not track inflation. The impact of that means that, once a lump sum has been taken, the parts of the pension that are left will receive lower or no annual increases. That is clearly unjust.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that very useful contribution. I was not aware of that, and I am shocked. It is a further injustice if pensioners in the UK are treated differently from pensioners who worked for the same company in other territories. While the Pensions Ombudsman can establish whether procedure has been followed, only politicians can decide whether outcomes are fair. Will the Minister set out what scope he sees for his role in ensuring fairness over defined benefit pension schemes? There is another injustice in the way that the Nissan scheme treats its pension holders. Members across the House will be aware that most people take up the option to take a quarter of their pension as a tax-free lump sum.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Does my hon. Friend agree that the ELSA study proves the need for wider screening, because of the 17,000 children screened, seven were already living with undiagnosed type 1 diabetes severe enough to require immediate treatment and a further 160 had early-stage type 1 diabetes? The study results from Birmingham show that screening needs to be rolled out across the country to save lives.”
“Will the Minister consider developing a clear statutory definition of “hazardous medicinal products” and subsequently mandate the development, publication and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive UK list of hazardous medicinal products?”
“My message to the Minister is to take back into the Whitehall system the support on both sides of the House for seeing the defence investment plan sooner rather than later and the message that further delay is not acceptable to Members across the House.”
“I welcome the Prime Minister making all the right noises in Munich about moving the 3% target forwards from his original deadline. My primary plea in the minute I have left is to move forward with the defence investment plan. The strategic defence review contains excellent proposals about capabilities we need, but every month that we drag on with this is a month in which industry does not have certainty about their order books and businesses are perhaps laying off people with skills when they should be recruiting people. More to the point, it is a month where, three years down the line, we might not have the kit in the hands of our troops that they will need in the event of a hot war with a potent opponent that can rearm to the levels of February 2022 if it has a three-year gap after the combat in Ukraine.”
“We do not have enough mass in our Army. We do not have enough reserves. We do not have enough air and missile defence assets—we know the impact of that; we can see what it does to civilian targets, both in Dubai and in Ukraine—and we do not have deep enough magazines of missiles and munitions. Depth of magazines is causing problems for the United States, let alone us. However, I do not think anyone should be in doubt about the political commitment of this Government to increasing defence spending, because we already took the very difficult decision to slash our overseas aid budget in order to increase spending on the MOD. That was a painful decision, but we will need to take other painful political decisions in the future.”
“I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing this important debate. I find it disappointing that parties have been missing and have not contributed to it—Reform, which has an ambiguous position on the threat from Russia; the SNP, which does not support our nuclear deterrent; and the Greens, who do not support our nuclear deterrent and have an ambiguous position on NATO. How did we end up in this frankly terrifying situation? Well, 14 years of austerity did not just wreck every other public service; it wrecked the fundamental public service that protects everything else we do as a society. It has put us in a very risky situation where we do not have enough air and naval platforms to be in every place that we need to be in, as we can see from a ship not already being in position in the eastern Mediterranean.”
“Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.”
“I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman’s reference to citizenship imply that Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, who have been enfranchised for about 100 years, should be disenfranchised in this country?”
“Q3. Residents in Stanley in my constituency are very excited about having their say on how to spend the £20 million of Pride in Place funding that Stanley South has received as one of the 250 most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. There are other villages and areas in North Durham that are too small to qualify for Pride in Place at the moment, but that are also urgently in need of investment—for instance, Grange Villa, New Kyo and the Avenues area of Chester-le-Street. Will the Prime Minister consider an additional wave of Pride in Place funding to target smaller, more concentrated areas of deprivation?”
“County Durham has been home to proud British industries for centuries, but for decades they have been in decline, and communities such as mine in North Durham have paid the price. Our modern industrial strategy will work to fix that. It is going to invest billions in defence, advanced manufacturing and clean power, which are sectors where the north-east has a unique advantage. Can the Minister assure me that our modern industrial strategy will bring jobs, growth and reindustrialisation to my constituency of North Durham?”
“I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can ensure that ESG requirements do not act as a barrier to this moral and practical necessity, and I hope to continue working with Members across the House to drive investment in the British defence industry, especially in the north-east of England.”
“Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, face particular challenges in accessing finance and banking, because of banks’ own compliance policies rather than ESG ratings. Will the Minister expand on how the Government can address those challenges, and encourage banks to adjust their compliance policies to better ensure that defence SMEs can access the capital they need to get off the ground? We must never lose sight of the moral case for the defence of our nation, which I know matters so much to my constituents in North Durham, many of whose family members are veterans or serving in the armed forces; indeed, one in 10 of the households in my constituency is in that position. We must do all we can to secure the capital that our defence industry needs to rearm the country at pace and stand up to the growing threats we face.”
“Clearly, the moral grandstanding of backing away from defence investment on ethical grounds does nothing to improve the ethical footprint of the defence industry. Instead, we ought to be working with industry to incentivise better practices, such as those I have just outlined. With that in mind, will the Minister elaborate on the positive role that ESG can play for defence companies? How can we ensure that the industry takes the greatest possible consideration of its impact on the planet, without getting in the way of its No. 1 priority, defending our nation? Thankfully, ESG standards are becoming less and less of a roadblock to defence spending, with ESG-labelled investment in defence rising steadily since 2021. However, broader structural issues continue to act as a barrier to unlocking growth in defence. SMEs, as my hon.”
“Through the UK defence ESG charter, the defence sector in the UK has collaborated to drive ambition and action on sustainability. The charter promotes greater transparency, dedicating firms to working together to meet commitments focused on climate transition, clean technology, societal impact, and governance and ethics. The charter was shortlisted for the 2025 Trade Association Forum awards in the ESG initiative of the year category. To give one example—it is actually the company that the hon. Member for Strangford talked so eloquently about, because it has a site so near to his constituency—Thales in the UK sources all its electricity from renewables, and ESG forms at least 15% of its supplier selection criteria. The platinum medal from EcoVadis places Thales among the top 1% of all firms in its rankings.”
“Can the Minister update us on the impact of ESG ratings on directing capital towards areas such as the north-east, where there is a heritage of industrial jobs and skills, and where investment would bolster the Government’s agenda of tackling regional inequality and bringing opportunity back to places such as County Durham? When they go wrong, ESG ratings can act as a drag on crucial investment in defence, but that does not mean we should write off the importance of ethical considerations when financing the defence of our nation. It is right that, even when investing in defence capabilities, we do all we can to operate in line with, for instance, the planet’s environmental limits. Indeed, many defence companies have already changed in line with ESG considerations.”
“There was Swan Hunter shipyard, and there was a very large factory, Vickers, producing land systems—it is still a very good factory, under Pearson Engineering, but a lot smaller. People remember the industrial contribution the north-east was making to defence. Unfortunately, the north-east now has the lowest per capita defence spend of any region or nation, according to the MOD’s own figures. I would go so far as to argue that there are significant ethical and social benefits from the kind of defence investment that would bring jobs to our area, upskill my constituents and provide them with the opportunity to make a good living in exercising the patriotic duty of pitching in by equipping the people who are defending our country.”
“As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in north-east England, I am particularly excited by the opportunities that the Government’s increase in defence spending can create for my constituents in North Durham and across the region. Less than a third of the Ministry of Defence’s spending with British industry is directed to London and the south-east, so defence can be an engine for growth in the regions. I share the Labour Government’s ambition for defence spending to act as a key engine for economic growth, especially in more deprived, post-industrial parts of the country, which have borne the brunt of decades of deindustrialisation, including my North Durham constituency. It is worth noting that, during the cold war, there were tens of thousands of jobs in the defence sector in north-east England.”
“Friends the Members for York Outer and for Aldershot (Alex Baker)—she is disappointed not to be able to join us today—calling on Britain’s bank and fund managers to do away with rules that class investment in defence, notably in supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, as somehow unethical. As the letter stated, “There can be no more ethical investment than giving the Ukrainian people every ounce of support that can be mustered by their allies.” That same standard, of course, applies to our own defence —one of the core tasks our constituents send us to this place to take care of. Ten months on from that letter, today’s debate is a prime opportunity for the Minister to update us on what consideration the Government have given to this issue, especially with regard to what I hope is the imminent defence investment plan.”
“We must not lose sight of the fact that the whole point of having the strongest possible defence capability is to act as a deterrent. We are not aiming to use these weapons; we are using them to try to prevent a war from happening. I am sure that I do not need to point out to Members the ethical, environmental and social harm of conflict. I know they are acutely aware that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for one. Only by projecting strength and showing our enemies that we are ready to fight can we deter the worst-case outcome. As the hon. Member for Windsor said, back in March 2025 I and 100 other Labour MPs signed a letter, which was co-ordinated by my hon.”
“To me, it is quite bizarre that people and institutions would put the provision of proper equipment for our armed forces or our allies who are fighting against fascism in Ukraine in the same category for divestment as tobacco, pornography, modern slavery or forced labour. That just seems perverse. Investment in the task of keeping the British people safe from the growing threats posed by hostile actors is not just legitimate, but a moral necessity. In the context of the strategic defence review, which correctly identifies the urgency and significance of unlocking private capital to drive the investment in defence that we need to meet the growing and complex threats facing the country, the impact of environmental, social and governance ratings on securing finance for defence must be looked at more closely than ever before.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate and introducing it so eloquently. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes important contributions to debates about defence matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), whose knowledge of defence financing is extremely granular. This debate is a chance to make it clear that the highest form of corporate social responsibility is for a company to be involved in the defence of the country.”
“On the proposal to extend the age limit under which reservists can be called back, a small number of them might have attained the extremely high levels of physical fitness of the Minister for the Armed Forces and be suitable for a wide range of roles, but some could be called back for back-office tasks such as analysing intelligence or training people, where the levels of fitness required are far lower than for any kind of combat role. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would release younger people who are currently in those roles to take up roles nearer the frontline?”
“It is an honour to serve under the right hon. Gentleman on the Finance Committee, where we look at slightly smaller-scale issues on spending. He appears to be questioning the Government’s political commitment to find the funding necessary for defence. Does he accept that the downpayment on that political will was the very tough political decision of the Government to take an axe to international development funding, something close to the hearts of many Labour Back Benchers, to provide additional funding for the MOD? If a Labour Government are prepared to take a step with that political courage, he should be in no doubt that, as the years go forward, we will find the funding that is essential to deal with the future defence threats we face.”
“We must do it for the current generation in active service, who are safeguarding the nation from threats, wherever they come from. We must do it for the entire population, who rightly expect that their Government will do all that they can to keep them safe from any risk of conflict and bloodshed.”
“I spoke about the tough political choices that we are making to obtain the funding that is needed for that, but landmark deals have also been secured to protect British jobs and help keep the world safer from hostile actors. We secured an £8 billion deal with Turkey on Eurofighter, which I spoke about in a Westminster Hall debate late last year, and we have seen the selection of the UK’s Type 26 frigates by Norway. Incidentally, I consider Norway to be one of our key strategic partners in defending the north Atlantic bastion. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to deliver a renewed covenant with our armed forces. We must do that for the brave men and women in North Durham who were willing to put their lives on the line throughout history and do so even now for the good of the rest of our constituents up and down the country.”
“I was elected on a manifesto that promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve through better housing, services and protections for our forces and their families. The Bill will do exactly that. It will also renew, as is done on a five-year basis, the existence of standing armed forces—a tradition that has gone on since 1688. I am sure Members will be unsurprised to hear that I am happy for this country to have standing armed forces. As others have said, I hope that the standing armed forces will grow and that we will attain the kind of mass that we need to deal with the threats we face. The Bill forms a key part of a wider picture of a Labour Government who are delivering on the defence of this nation.”
“For my constituents, having proper housing, social care, justice and other support for veterans is not just about making a pledge; they must be a reality for them and their loved ones in order to get on with life. Since being elected, I have tried to use my role in this place as a platform to stand up for our armed forces and veterans and call for greater investment in defending our country. In an increasingly turbulent world, the importance of the invaluable efforts of our servicemen and women is clearer than it has been at any time since the end of the cold war. I am proud that we have a Labour Government who are showing through this Bill that we are on the side of our armed forces.”
“One in every 10 households I speak to in North Durham has a veteran or serving member of the armed forces. When I am campaigning on people’s doorsteps, I often play “spot the cap badge”, as many homes have different badges just inside the door as mementos, and if I manage to recognise it, it helps to strike up a conversation. Across my constituency are people who have served in all three services and many different units, but North Durham has a particularly strong connection with the Durham Light Infantry—also known as the DLI or Faithful Durhams—and its successor regiments following amalgamation. I pay particular tribute to the Durham Light Infantry Association for its role in my constituency.”
“I think that their apparent lack of interest in defence matters could partly be because, while most of us across the rest of the House have sleepless nights worrying about the threat to the United Kingdom and its allies from Russia, Reform Members do not actually accept that that threat exists; they are on a spectrum that ranges from thinking it is all Ukraine’s fault that it was ever the subject of two invasions and the threat of a third, through to their Welsh leader actually accepting money from the people whose military threat we are trying to counter. For many families across North Durham, the contract between the state and the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces is a key issue—one that they sent me here to focus on.”
“I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Members across the House who have brought to the debate personal experience of serving this country in the armed forces. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his insightful speech, in which he talked about some of the threats we face. It was mentioned earlier in the debate that there are no Members present from the Reform party.”
“Today is an important chance to strengthen our resolve and stand up for persecuted people who need our protection. Will the Minister therefore explain why it has been more than a year since any new sanctions were imposed to cut off money and arms going to the Myanmar military? Will she assure the House that we will resume imposing such sanctions? We must not allow the religious minority communities of Myanmar to suffer in silence. I join colleagues across the House in urging the Government to keep standing up for the rights of those persecuted people by expanding targeted sanctions against those committing atrocities, directing humanitarian aid towards those who need it the most and working through international institutions to hold the military junta and other forces waging war in the region to account.”
“The military junta has said it itself that, in its view, “Whether the international community is satisfied or not, is irrelevant.” These elections are vital in understanding this issue. They will be passed off as a front for the appalling human rights abuses and the persecution of minorities we have heard about today. We must stand steadfast against that and reject the idea that these so-called elections give any legitimacy to a malign regime. In April 2025, the UK supported a Human Rights Council resolution calling for the protection of civilians and all minorities. It has also been clear that it does not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. I am pleased that the Government have committed to taking any steps they can, including sanctions, to bring about peace.”
“Last year, Myanmar rose two places on the Open Doors world watch list, an annual ranking of the 50 countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution. It now scores in the extreme category for persecution. That categorisation puts the situation facing Christians in Myanmar on a par with that in places such as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Myanmar is currently in the process of holding a set of elections that no observer could characterise as free or fair. They will be an opportunity for the Burmese military to rebrand and put forward a false narrative that it is reforming. Frankly, it will not concern the Burmese military that we can see the elections for what they are: a sham.”
“The Arakan Army also pursues its agenda of oppression by less direct means. It limits freedom of speech, censors access to international media and communications, arrests journalists, and threatens civil society organisations in the area it controls. For Christians, the situation is similarly bleak. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. Nowhere has that been more intense than in the landlocked state of Chin—the poorest of Myanmar’s 14 states and regions. More and more Christians have been driven out of their homes, finding refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some have even been forced to flee to the jungle, where they are deprived of access to food and basic healthcare.”
“Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), about 1 million Rohingya live in overcrowded refugee camps in Bangladesh, after fleeing Myanmar in 2017, showing the tangible impact of the persecution that we are highlighting, with the displacement of swathes of people, condemning them to a poor quality of life. As conflict rages in this part of Myanmar, the Rohingya have been caught between the junta and the Arakan Army, which the UN has documented committing multiple violations of international law. Both sides have indiscriminately attacked civilians since hostilities between them resumed in November 2023. I therefore ask the Minister whether she can assure us that aid to Rohingya refugees and the people of Myanmar will not be cut in the context of the overall UK aid budget.”
“Whatever the changes—the political twists and turns in society in Myanmar, or whichever individuals ended up on different sides of the debate—they have not mattered, because the campaign has consistently advocated for fundamental human rights. As we have heard, Myanmar is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. Since the military coup in 2021, the Christian and Muslim minority populations of Myanmar have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions on their freedom. In Rakhine state, about 630,000 Rohingya Muslims remain subject to systematic abuses and crimes against humanity. About 150,000 are held in open-air detention camps. The Rohingya are one of the largest stateless populations in the world, in effect having been denied citizenship since 1982. As we heard from the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing the crisis in Myanmar to our attention and I congratulate the other Back-Bench speakers in the debate so far on their eloquent and important contributions. I declare my long-standing membership of the Burma Campaign UK. I joined because, about 20 to 25 years ago, I heard testimony from two Burmese refugees at my local Labour party meeting. I asked what I could do, and they said that I should sign up to the Burma Campaign. That is part of the reason I am speaking today, having received their updates and understanding what is going on in the country. I also commend the Burma Campaign on the consistency of its support for human rights.”
“No matter what unit they served in, veterans in North Durham are particularly concerned about the impact of the new legislation on those who served in the special forces. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he has met the Special Air Service Regimental Association and is responding to its specific concerns?”
“We need to reimagine our high streets as community hubs that people will once again be proud to visit. My constituents and those of other hon. Members deserve better. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Luke Akehurst, Dan Aldridge, Danny Beales, Dr Allison Gardner, Leigh Ingham, Jayne Kirkham, Amanda Martin, Kevin McKenna, Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Dr Lauren Sullivan and Peter Swallow present the Bill. Luke Akehurst accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 3 51 ).”
“The Bill fits in with the tangible steps that the Labour Government are taking to restore pride in place in our communities; for example, the aptly named Pride in Place scheme is injecting £20 million into some of the most deprived communities in the country, including South Stanley in my constituency. We should have zero tolerance for eyesore, derelict buildings. Premises sit empty, while many organisations, charities, businesses and community groups desperately need them. If there were more people working on the high street, that would naturally bring more footfall—visitors who will use other shops and cafés. The high street naturally faces problems, due to increased internet shopping and out-of-town shopping centres, but we do not need to accept terminal decline.”
“The first is all too familiar to Members across the House: a ghost town of empty shops, lost potential and eerily quiet streets. The second is a brighter alternative: a thriving town centre, where every unit provides value to our constituents, and to which more people come to do their shopping, to treat themselves, and to spend time with loved ones. I know which of those visions our constituents put us here to deliver, and the Bill would help us get there. The state of the high street is the clearest visible indicator of the state of the economy, and it is of paramount importance to how the public see the communities that we live in.”
“It aims to give local authorities the power to step in and compel absentee landlords to make empty shop units available temporarily to charities, community groups and small businesses. The aim is to address the growing number of empty shops and commercial units, each of which represents the wasted potential of a space that could be serving customers, hiring local people and bringing footfall to the town centre. The Bill will provide a lifeline to new enterprises, giving them the backing that they may need to break through and become a staple of the local community. Whether filled by a small business employing our constituents, or a charity or community organisation providing vital services for the most vulnerable, those spaces could be so much more than a vacuum. The Bill presents us with two visions of our town centres.”