partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.

Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology

Labour Party

Sitting MPs
404
Entries, last 7 days
347
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Conservative and Unionist Party

Sitting MPs
118
Entries, last 7 days
89
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Liberal Democrats

Sitting MPs
71
Entries, last 7 days
64
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Reform UK

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
8
Members
270,000 CLAIMED

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Scottish National Party

Sitting MPs
8
Entries, last 7 days
9
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

Green Party

Sitting MPs
5
Entries, last 7 days
0
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 4 Nov 2026

Plaid Cymru

Sitting MPs
4
Entries, last 7 days
2
Members
No claim recorded

Latest entry 10 Nov 2026

All parties, latest first

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

  1. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Court Transcripts

    I am sorry to hear about the hon. Member’s constituent’s case. Technology in this area is a potential game changer. However, as with all technological adoption, particularly in the justice arena, we have got to ensure accuracy for the very reason she says. The transcript has to be accurate, and redactions have to be made where necessary to protect individual participants in the case and to ensure reporting restrictions. That all has to be done safely, but I can assure her that the Ministry of Justice is progressing at pace with the adoption of AI, which will be a game changer in the years to come.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Court Transcripts

    Equality before the law should mean just that, and as my hon. Friend says, it is an important principle to bear in mind when we talk about barriers to access to justice, whether we are talking about the cost of representation, which we try to address through legal aid, or about the cost of transcripts. In the current context, the targeted approach that we have taken—prioritising the victims of the most serious crimes, and now extending eligibility so that all victims can request court transcripts through the Sentencing Act 2026 from the spring of 2027—constitutes a big step forward. I hope that developments in technology will enable us to lower the costs and make that freely available to all in due course.

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Court Transcripts

    I know that the hon. Lady is a great advocate in this regard. I have had the pleasure of meeting Charlotte on a number of occasions, and I know how important her campaign is. The hon. Lady is right: owing to the Government’s commitment to audio recording and the capital investments that we are making to enable it to happen, change is coming soon and fast. We will seek to go as far as we are able while preserving the accuracy of those transcripts.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Topical Questions

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that our magistrates are the backbone of our justice system. I meet magistrates from across the length and breadth of the land, and I have met the Magistrates Association. We have to make being a magistrate more attractive. That is why our reform of their expenses, allowing for greater flexibility, is so important. We are transforming the application process and the training that magistrates receive to make it more attractive for people to volunteer their time. I want to put on record that we are incredibly grateful to our army of volunteers who keep the justice system going.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Topical Questions

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising such a moving case, and I pay tribute to his constituent, who is here today. Let us be absolutely clear: the Government’s position is that parental alienation has no evidential basis and is a totally discredited concept. We are working carefully with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to limit the instruction of unregulated experts, including those who hold that they are parental alienation experts. I hope that will ring the changes and prevent this sort of thing in future.

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentLabourSarah Sackman

    Topical Questions

    Of course I will meet my hon. Friend about that case. She is a tremendous advocate for her constituent. It is important to say that we have ensured that legal aid is available for domestic abuse victims, and we have also changed the evidence thresholds that must be met in order to access that aid. I will look into the case that she raises, and I look forward to meeting her to discuss it.

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentLabourSamantha Niblett

    Topical Questions

    T5. A constituent of mine in South Derbyshire, Sarah Page, is associate professor for social justice at University of Staffordshire, which I visited last week. She and her colleagues told me about their “From Harm to Hope” research. It highlights the unique challenges that women prisoners face, including being held far from family due to the limited number of women’s prisons. They also raised concerns that the national drug strategy is not sufficiently gender-sensitive, particularly in addressing the impact of child abuse and domestic abuse on women in the criminal justice system. Will my hon. Friend meet me, Sarah and her colleagues to ensure that these women-specific issues are properly reflected in our criminal justice system?

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentLabourSam Carling

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I, too, thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate, and I, too, wish we had more time. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan), who made some difficult, but really important points. This is a timely debate, because pharmaceuticals are core both to supporting a healthier population and to delivering economic growth. The main estimates memorandum outlines an expectation of just under £2 billion of R&D expenditure over the coming year from the DHSC, which is roughly equal to the figure in the previous estimates, and I welcome that. Of course, private investment also plays a significant role in drug development. That is why I am so pleased to see increasing confidence from the private sector in the UK as an environment in which to do impactful research. Last month, we saw AstraZeneca commit £300 million in investment across the UK, after this Government’s work to agree a pharmaceutical deal with the US enabled that investment. However, there is much more to do to create a regulatory environment that encourages investment into clinical research in the UK. I encourage the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to consider simplifying and consolidating our regulatory landscape. I am not here to criticise our regulators, who I believe do a very good job in their respective roles. I have regular engagement with research scientists, universities and professional bodies through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group known as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. This is the oldest APPG, which was established in 1939 to better connect scientists and parliamentarians in the interests of better policy. The overwhelming message is that, actually, regulators get it and want to enable research and growth, not hinder it, but that the overall landscape is just so complex that approvals are taking far longer than they need to. In a contribution to the King’s Speech debate last month, I listed a range of regulators: the MHRA, NICE, the Health and Safety Executive, the Human Tissue Authority, the Health Research Authority, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the Animals in Science Regulation Unit, and so on. That is just too many regulators and that is not even all of them. I very much hope the Government will use the upcoming regulating for growth Bill to look at how to reduce overlap and streamline the environment. Having to get so many decisions slows down research and innovation enormously, particularly when researchers have to apply for clearance from them sequentially in most cases, rather than in tandem, stretching the overall timeline. I propose another solution. Why do we not create a single front door for study approvals: a unified application process that collects all the information that different regulators might need, so that researchers can fill in one form, and a team of recruited staff whose job it is to liaise with all the regulators, establish who needs to approve the individual study in question and pass along the information necessary, ideally in tandem rather than each approval being sequential and relying on the last? I hope the Minister will take some of those ideas on board. There are many reasons to be optimistic. The UK has been, and in many areas still is, a world leader in drug development. Let us keep building on that.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Before my election, I spent well over a decade working as a pharmacist on the high street. I stood behind my counter and watched the flow of the community come and go through the door. I challenged shoplifters, from which I still literally bear the scars. What I lived, and what I now hear about week after week at my surgeries and visits across North Somerset, is worry—worry that our high streets are becoming a symbol of decline, rather than a source of pride. In Portishead, residents have watched yet another vape shop or barber shop open where a much-loved local business used to be. People notice, and residents ask why. This matters because the high street is not just bricks, footfall and business rates; it is where people feel proud of where they live and it is where community happens. The opposite is true, too. Vacant storefronts and deserted high streets do not just look sad, they breed antisocial behaviour. That is the backdrop, on top of which our high streets are now under fresh pressure. Just last month, as temperatures soared, footfall on the high street dropped by 19% on the hottest May day on record, and we saw the same pattern in the most recent heatwave. Shoppers stayed home, commuters worked from home and the high street paid the price. Whether it is empty units or empty pavements, the message is the same: our high streets are fragile and need support. That is why I welcome the Government’s action: a £30 million enforcement package with raids, closures and cash seizures against the dodgy vape shops, barber shops and mini-marts linked to organised crime, which launder an estimated £1 billion of criminal cash every year. We can have the renaissance on our high streets that my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) set out yesterday, but first we need to joust with those criminal businesses. The Government’s action is significant recognition that our high streets are worth fighting for, but I admit that we need even more. We need a co-ordinated vision for what our high streets will look like in 2030 or 2035. We need to manage the future of our high streets, not watch their decline.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I have been a pharmacist and an employer for nearly two decades, and nearly every good business was already doing what is in the Employment Rights Act to recruit staff. Recruiters need to offer those things. It is simple.

    Hansard source
  11. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I must declare an interest as a registered pharmacist for nearly two decades and an expert on pharmacy procurement. Let be begin by saying that I welcome the UK-US pharmaceutical trade agreement, and also by saying something quite controversial: President Donald Trump is right. We do underpay for drugs—not just our expensive, lifesaving rare cancer drugs, but the everyday drugs that we purchase.

    Hansard source
  12. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman’s figures come from. When we look at the drug tariff reimbursement, which is the system that we use to pay, and compare it with the arrangements in other countries, it is clear that we underpay significantly. Perhaps he is referring to something of which I am unaware; I should be happy to chat to him outside. We in this country are addicted to low-cost drugs for our health service, and what does that addiction mean? It means that we have the lowest costs and we always go for the cheapest drugs, and that favours foreign manufacturers. It destroys UK supply chains, as we have seen over the last 25 years, and it endangers our resilience as a country. We are already seeing the side effects of that, with drugs being out of stock. We have a system for payment called the drug tariff, which establishes how much pharmacies will buy drugs for and how much they will be reimbursed for. There are currently 254 price concessions. Price concessions happen when a drug is out of stock, and we must make an emergency increase to the price in the drug tariff to try to bring it back into the country. Given that there are 3,500 drugs in that section of the drug tariff, 254 does not sound a lot, but it is the highest level that I remember seeing in my entire professional career. Last month’s highest level of 230 has just been exceeded. Cheap drugs often mean that we overvalue the benefit of medicines in our system and use a “drug first” approach in the NHS, and that has continued for decades. When we increase the price that we pay for drugs, it allows us to start considering the benefits of other types of treatment, such as social prescribing. Social prescribing becomes a great deal cheaper by comparison in a system in which drugs are valued at the correct level. The all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, which I chair, published a report in June 2025 that laid out some of the problems with drug pricing and availability. I absolutely support the idea of paying more for drugs, because at the moment we are building a system that is creaking and breaking. By trying to pursue every penny of savings, we have destroyed UK manufacturing and offshored our problems. The only way to bring that back is to rebuild the drug tariff, with the idea of paying to procure more in the UK.

    Hansard source
  13. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    Department of Health and Social Care

    First of all, Medicines UK does not disagree with me; its members disagree that the value from the UK-US trade deal will go to people other than them. Medicines UK actually thinks that companies are not paid enough for drugs in this country. Unfortunately, you might need to go and have a chat with the association about that, because you might have misunderstood.

    Hansard source
  14. ParliamentLabourSadik Al-Hassan

    Department of Health and Social Care

    In conclusion, I welcome the deal. I hope we find a way to pay for drugs correctly in this country, so that we value them properly and can value the rest of the system.

    Hansard source
  15. ParliamentLabourRuth Jones

    Women’s Prison Estate: Biological Males

    Given that we are thinking about the women’s prison estate more generally, and given that the Swansea residential women’s centre was due to open in 2024 but now does not look like it will open at all, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Welsh women can access alternatives to custody?

    Hansard source
  16. ParliamentLabourRosie Wrighting

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    My hon. Friend is an incredible advocate for young people in his constituency, but also across the country. What is his opinion of a lot of young people getting financial education from social media or AI chatbots? The Government need to regulate that but also, ahead of the social media ban, ensure that we are bringing financial education into schools and other real-life forums, so that young people do not miss out.

    Hansard source
  17. ParliamentLabourRichard Baker

    Defence Investment Plan

    Reindustrialisation and backing British are the hallmarks of this defence investment plan. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and with the GMB and Unite unions that we need to build not only ships in Britain but new floating docks for Faslane? Does he agree that Programme Euston should be built by the skilled workforce at the Methil yard in my constituency?

    Hansard source
  18. ParliamentLabourRachel Blake

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful that my first chance to speak as the Minister in Westminster Hall is in such a thorough and rich debate on this topic. Let me join in with the tradition of talking about our first job by saying that I spent many a happy afternoon doing a Saturday job on the high street in a sadly now-closed women’s retailer. I am very proud that jobs like that still exist: it gave me a thorough and deep understanding of the importance of the high street. It would be impossible to cover or respond to all of the rich and broad points that have been raised this afternoon. I also want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) a chance to respond; I thank him for securing this debate and for all his work to focus the Government and colleagues on young people and the particular challenges that they face. We have had a really broad range of contributions, including from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting). It has been a powerful debate. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to affordable financial products and services to enable them to engage in the economy. In responding, I want to talk briefly about youth employment and support for mental health, and then try to get through the questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. Following the Milburn report and the contributions made today, we have to be clear that the Government are in no way complacent about youth unemployment. We are absolutely determined to unlock the potential of young people across the UK. Funding for employment support is increasing to more than £3.75 billion per year by 2028-29. At the last Budget, the Government committed to more than £1.5 billion to back young people through the youth guarantee and invest additional funding in the growth and skills levy. This afternoon, we have heard interesting suggestions as to how that work can be undertaken, whether it is in youth hubs or in other youth settings. It is the responsibility of us all to consider how that investment can be made most effective, with industry working with the Government to provide jobs guarantees for a wide range of people and ensure that there are youth jobs grants under which businesses receive £3,000 for every young person they hire between the ages of 18 and 24. This is a partnership approach between industry and Government, and one that I believe will make a real difference. I also want to talk about the significant issue of mental health and its prevalence in society, particularly among young people. Today, we are talking specifically about its interaction with financial inclusion. The strategy recognises that mental health can significantly affect people’s ability to access and use financial services, along with the interrelationship between people’s mental health and their attitudes and ability to work with particular financial products. It is therefore important that we strengthen the support available for individuals through interventions to improve debt collection practices, expand the breathing space scheme to support individuals in problem debt during a mental health crisis, and examine how pre-existing mental health conditions are treated in the travel insurance market. Each of those approaches is very much under way.

    Hansard source
  19. ParliamentLabourRachel Blake

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    As the hon. Member will expect, I disagree with his characterisation of employer NI and the Employment Rights Act. I remind him of the positive impact that both those measures are having on workers, our NHS and the services that they are funding, and of the specific ways in which they operate with young people. His evidence base therefore does not entirely stack up. I turn to the issue of building up a credit record. The Government are continuing to engage with the FCA on its work with industry to tackle thin credit files. As part of that, the FCA has recently consulted on introducing mandatory credit information sharing by regulated firms, which would mean that any firm reporting to one designated credit reference agency must report the same information to all such agencies, ensuring full and consistent information on a consumer’s file. To give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford a chance to respond, I will rattle through actions on insurance. The Government recognise the important role of insurance in supporting individuals’ financial resilience. There are pilots among social renters, led by Fair4All Finance, and the Government also recognise that affordability is a key issue. We have had quite a thorough discussion about scam ads. The Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year, and once they are implemented it will be able to impose fines of up to £80 million or 10% of qualifying revenue, whichever is greater. I certainly want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. There is much more to cover, and I commit to doing so in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and will be happy to continue the conversation.

    Hansard source
  20. ParliamentLabourRachael Maskell

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. York is fortunate that two thirds of its high street businesses are independent, but they are really struggling at the moment, not least because of the costs pressing on their finances—particularly business rates, which have gone up incredibly steeply. Does the hon. Member agree not only that businesses are laying off staff, but that they are not recruiting staff, which is vital for the regeneration of high streets? We need the Government to take an overview and make a plan for regeneration, as my right hon. Friend the new Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) made the case for just yesterday.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLabourRachael Maskell

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    The hon. Member is being incredibly generous. He has talked about infrastructure and agencies. It is also important to ensure that we have facilities such as public toilets and good seating on our high streets, but the disinvestment in our local authorities over a long time has prevented that. Will he support my call for investment in local areas so that we have seating for the elderly and play areas for children on our high streets?

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLabourRachael Maskell

    Department of Health and Social Care

    This debate should have taken place long before a deal was signed, and the fact that we are having it months afterwards shows that there is still no transparency. Last December, the pharma and health tech deal was signed, and it was made clear that money would have to be taken out of the Department of Health while the Government were trying to solve a Treasury problem. As we have heard, that problem was the trade deal with the US and the wider relationship. The big question that has not been answered is this: if we are going to take money out to fund this deal—we have heard that from 0.3% to 0.6% of GDP will be spent on pharma—where are the cuts going to fall? Research shows that excess deaths will result. We also know that at the same time as paying more, we will get a lower rebate—down from 25% to 14.5%—so VPAG will be more expensive. As a result, we will be paying more for our drugs and getting less back. In developing countries, which benefit from the way the health system works, the toll will be even more significant. As NICE changes its relationship and its function, and of course does not have the independence it was set up to have, there will ultimately be more flexibility for Ministers to make determinations about drugs. Not only will there be a cumulative cost of £2.6 billion by the end of 2028, but that is estimated to go up to £44.7 billion. That is why we need to see the impact assessment—so that the Government can prove to us that that is not the case. Of course, for every £1 billion cut from budgets, £118 million is cut from social care. That leads on to the excess deaths, which will depend on where those cuts fall. We obviously want the Government to be transparent with us, because this is about the lives of our constituents. The data shows that there will be 229,000 excess deaths by 2033. That is almost double the number of deaths during covid. However, putting everything together, the figure could be as high as 291,000 excess deaths. Exactly which of our constituents are going to pay the price for this deal? NICE itself predicts that the benefit will bring only between two and five additional drug approvals annually, so for very little gain we could be paying an exceedingly high price. One of my biggest fears is that the ratchet of the focus of the US on the NHS, which it has always had, will draw the drug companies in even closer, and if another party gets control of our NHS, it could well fall into the hands of the US. We need that impact assessment, we need transparency and we need to protect lives.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLabourPreet Kaur Gill

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I will try to answer all the questions that have been put to me in the short time I have. First, I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. Members, and I thank the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for securing this debate. The UK-US pharmaceuticals arrangement is an important step forward for patient access to innovation and the future of our life sciences sector. This arrangement is fundamentally about patients by ensuring that they can benefit from life-changing medicines as they are developed, rather than see the UK being left behind. We have already seen the benefit from those changes, with NICE approving life-changing treatments such as vorasidenib, a brain cancer drug for patients as young as 12. The UK’s life sciences sector is one of our greatest national strengths. It saves lives, supports jobs and underpins innovation across our economy. I am proud that thanks to this arrangement, the United Kingdom will be the only country in the world to have secured a commitment to tariff-free access for pharmaceutical exports into the United States. The Chair of the Committee raised NICE and VPAG changes and rebates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also raised a number of issues, as did my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will address them now. The joint Government and industry taskforce has been discussing the options for continuing to evolve our system to ensure that we maximise benefits to patients and the economy. It will make recommendations on pilot programmes as per the UK-US arrangement commitment, and I look forward to providing an update to the Committee on that in due course. I know there has been concern that these changes undermine NICE’s independence, but that is not the case—let me just be clear about that. NICE will continue to make its recommendations based on evidence, clinical effectiveness and value for money, free from political interference. The change will allow Ministers to set the overall threshold within which NICE operates, not to determine individual decisions. This will preserve NICE’s core role as an independent evaluator, while ensuring that the framework that it uses reflects how we value innovation and patient benefit. Concerns were also raised about the fact that the UK commitments are larger than the US commitments, but I do not agree. The UK has made policy changes to improve access for patients, while the US has committed to tariff protection for UK exports, which is significant given the scale of that market. The commitments deliver improved patient access in the UK and protection for UK exports.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLabourPreet Kaur Gill

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I am trying to get through all these questions as quickly as I can. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly. On the VPAG changes and rebates, alongside changes to NICE recommendations, the arrangement affects how pricing and repayment mechanisms operate through the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth. To ensure predictability for the industry going forwards, given the unexpectedly high payment percentage for newer medicines for 2025, the Government have committed to ensuring that future VPAG rates do not exceed 15%. This will support life sciences investment and patient access to medicines while ensuring that the scheme can continue to work for both industry and the NHS, keeping the medicines budget sustainable. I look forward to engaging with the sector on the future of the voluntary scheme, with negotiations due to begin next year informed by the outcomes or interim findings from pilot programmes that were launched as early as this September.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLabourPreet Kaur Gill

    Department of Health and Social Care

    With respect, I am going to answer the questions that have been put to me by many hon. Members, and I am coming to the impact assessment. We have been clear that the estimated short-term impact is around £1 billion in England over the spending review period. Costs will increase over time as NICE approves more medicines, but precise long-term costs cannot be modelled as a single figure; they depend on future medicines, NICE approvals, uptake and wider commercial developments. Members mentioned a number of figures. I do not recognise the £9 billion and £14 billion figures for costs. Spending on innovative medicines increases year on year as new treatments become available, so underlining growth would be expected to continue regardless of this arrangement, and often the figures cited publicly do not take that into account. We are committed to increasing spending on medicines as a proportion of NHS spend, ending the recent decline in the proportion of health spend dedicated to medicines and increasing spending on innovative medicines to 0.6% of GDP. The Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) raised a really important point. Life sciences is one of our most productive sectors. It underpins research and development, clinical trials and high-value manufacturing, and it supports jobs across the country. Over £1 billion in industry investment has already been secured since the announcement of this arrangement in December last year. That includes AstraZeneca’s recent announcement of a £300 million investment into R&D sites at Cambridge and Macclesfield. That demonstrates the confidence that this key sector has in the UK. Maintaining a strong commercial environment helps ensure continued investment and the development of new treatments. This is not separate from patient benefit. It enables the pipeline of the new medicines that NHS patients ultimately rely on.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLabourPreet Kaur Gill

    Department of Health and Social Care

    I recognise the Committee’s request for the impact assessment, but the analysis is scenario-based, contains commercially sensitive assumptions and remains linked to live policy development. Officials should be able to produce confidential advice for Ministers to inform trade and other negotiations, and we will not apologise for maintaining such confidentially where doing so is in the national interest.

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourPeter Dowd

    Department of Health and Social Care

    The NHS will carry out screening and evaluation of newborn babies for spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which causes spinal cord deterioration. It is a devastating genetic condition. The evaluation will start in October in England, but not in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. Does my hon. Friend agree that the will must be found to ensure comprehensive cover for all nations? We can have no more delays. We need action now to save the lives of children and prevent trauma for families.

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourPerran Moon

    High Streets

    I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the decade of decline for our high streets, but does he agree that initiatives such as high street rental auctions and Pride in Place are putting money back into them? Does he recognise that those are positive schemes for his high streets and that they need to be made more widely available across the United Kingdom?

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourPerran Moon

    Court Transcripts

    I listened carefully to what the Minister has just said. Court transcripts are important to a victim’s sense of justice served, but does she agree that access to this very important information should never be dependent on the victim’s ability to pay?

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourPatrick Hurley

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Our local high streets are the beating heart of our towns and our country, but they have faced profound challenges in recent years. We have seen the rise of online retail, changing consumer habits and years of under-investment in our town centres, and the tax system and business rates have not kept pace with that. In my view, the answer to all that is not simply to recreate the high streets of 30 or 40 years ago. The successful town centre or high street of the future will look different. We need to work to combine retail with culture, hospitality, housing, leisure, health services and other aspects of community activity. In my constituency, we are trying to do just that: restoring our iconic seaside pier, investing in public services, supporting creative and cultural sectors—including the Warehouse Arts Centre, which opened just last week—bringing vacant upper floors above retail units back into use as homes, and improving the aesthetics of the town. However, as well as good intentions, we need—my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) mentioned the trading standards officer in Dudley—the confidence and determination to enforce our will. Across the country, our constituents are increasingly raising concerns that premises appear to be operating outside the law. Legitimate businesses, which employ local people and contribute positively to their communities, should not have to compete with enterprises involved in illicit tobacco, counterfeit goods, money laundering or other criminal activity. To combat that, we need stronger partnership working between local authorities, trading standards, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and every other enforcement agency, and we need to ensure that they all have the resources that they need to act swiftly. Visible enforcement matters because it helps to restore confidence among residents, visitors and responsible businesses alike. Alongside enforcement, I want to suggest a more ambitious approach to regeneration and renewal, through what I have previously described as renovation zones. Those would be specifically designated areas, typically focused on existing town centres, in which Government could use a package of fiscal incentives, planning flexibilities and public investment to encourage the refurbishment, repurposing and reoccupation of existing buildings, with the aim of increasing population density, economic activity and civic life. Many of our traditional town centres contain beautiful historic buildings with vacant upper floors and underused premises. Renovation zones would provide targeted incentives to encourage the refurbishment and repurposing of those buildings. Rather than endless outward expansion with out-of-town retail parks, we could be focusing on repairing, restoring and repopulating the places that we already have. If we combine robust enforcement against unlawful storefronts with a bold programme of renewal and reinvestment, our high streets can once again become thriving civic centres at the heart of community life.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his warm words welcoming me to my place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this important debate, and I thank all Members for their passionate contributions, reflecting their commitment to their local high streets and to the people they represent. High streets are integral to our communities. They are where people work, shop and spend time together. At their best, they are vibrant and welcoming places, supporting local communities and building pride in place. However, as Members have articulated, too many high streets face real challenges, from changing consumer habits to vacant units and declining footfall. In some areas, those challenges are compounded by the rise of businesses used as fronts for criminal activity. The Government are determined to address both sides of the challenge: to support regeneration and renewal, while tackling the unlawful activity that undermines all our high streets. Thriving high streets do not just happen by accident. They require investment over a long period, planning, and a clear vision for the future—backed, crucially, by local leaders with powers to protect their towns and high streets. I understand that well; having served as a council leader, I know how passionate debates about high streets can become. Later this year, the Government will publish a cross-Government high street strategy, because saving our high streets needs a cross-Government approach. The strategy will be backed by £300 million to support the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors— I was pleased to meet with representatives of the hospitality sector last week—and to help them to reimagine the role of the high street in modern Britain.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I do not disagree with the right hon. Member. We have seen the impact of online retail, and I think it would be misleading to say that we are about to see its disappearance. Instead, we have an obligation to think about what our high streets might look like in the future. Local communities want to be able to shape their high streets. The partnership between a local authority, businesses and residents can shape future high streets, not least through the commitment to densification—an important point made by a number of Members today.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    Footfall is a key part of keeping our high streets alive. That comes partly through home building, but it also comes from ensuring variety on our high streets. A key part of the Government’s high streets innovation partnership will involve working with selected places to set out new approaches, boost activity and support a shift towards a mixed use of high streets. Alongside that, the Government are investing almost £6 billion into Pride in Place programmes over the next decade to give communities the power and funding to transform their local areas.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I am very happy to work with the right hon. Member. I was about to say that I would be happy to meet her to talk about Ravenscourt, which I think she referred to in her speech, but I extend that to any part of her constituency that will benefit from the Government’s Pride in Place funding.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I will make a bit of progress, if that is all right. Supporting high streets means Government backing our high streets. Each place—each town, high street and village—has a different personality and identity. The role of Government should be to support them and enhance the place they live in. The Government believe that people who live in those places know them best. That is why we are moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach, equipping places with practical levers for change and shifting funding, decision making and accountability from Whitehall to the hands of mayors, councils, local businesses and residents. The high streets rental auctions are a key example of that, giving councils the power to bring persistently vacant properties back into use. We have just announced £10 million to support the expansion and roll-out of that programme, helping councils to identify opportunities, engage landlords and get properties back into use. Alongside the community right to buy, now backed by £61 million of funding, that will give local people a greater say in the future of their area. In my experience, local people are not short of opinions on how they want to shape their area, but crucial actions by Government are needed to back that vision. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley), who spoke about the need to renovate older buildings. The Government have taken some good steps on that. Members today have called for changes to address the blight of betting shops and vape shops. The Government have taken some action with the gambling cumulative impact assessments, but I recognise that many are looking for further action, so that we can put a stop to the betting shops popping up all over our high streets. It is not enough simply to respond to change. We must empower local communities and provide the resources to those local communities and councils to shape their high streets. The points hon. Members made about beautiful design and places looking nice are important. There is not a lot a local authority or community can do if people have to step over rubbish or, frankly, do not feel safe in the local park in the town centre. Design codes are important, as is the national planning policy framework.

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I thank the hon. Member for that important point. I recognise how passionate people are about that. The NPPF does set out some of that, but the truth is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Having been a council leader, I know how challenging that can be. It is important that the public realm is shaped by local people. The best examples are where there is co-production and co-operation between local partners, residents and businesses.

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I acknowledge that call, and I believe the NPPF goes some way towards doing it. I understand there may be gaps; Government will always be willing to look at that and work with the Local Government Association, for example, which supplies some of that guidance. Whether a statutory response is appropriate is yet to be debated. I am confident that the NPPF provides what is necessary. I do accept the point that the public realm is a key part of regenerating our high streets and town centres. On the points about organised crime and illegal activity, I assure hon. Members that the Government recognise that we will not see high street regeneration or thriving town centres without tackling that head-on. Regardless of how many functions we devolve and high streets we regenerate, they simply will not thrive if illegal businesses are left to take hold. I recognise the concerns raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, that too many high street premises are being used as fronts for organised crime, facilitating money laundering, tax evasion, illegal working and the sale of illicit goods. Although opinions may differ on what looks nice in relation to design codes, nobody wants to see illegal activity on our high streets and in our town centres. The Government have announced £30 million of investment over three years to target those businesses and crack down on the corrupt networks operating on our high streets. A sum of £20 million to strengthen national co-ordination and local enforcement will make a difference, which we are seeing already, with hundreds of so-called businesses conducting illegal activity targeted, visits to thousands of premises, hundreds of arrests and the seizure of millions of criminal proceeds. We are strengthening the role of trading standards, which has been left for too long without the required resources, with £6 million to boost its capacity in priority areas. I recognise trading standards is still under pressure, and local government representatives frequently raise the subject with me. Alongside enforcement, we are strengthening powers to act quickly and effectively. I hear too often that local authorities want to take power but feel restricted. We are extending and reviewing closure powers, including consulting on increasing the maximum duration of closure orders to 12 months.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss whether the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government can do something to support the local authority in rectifying that situation. As I say, the Government are also extending and reviewing closure powers. We want to ensure a sustained, long-term response alongside that, so we have established a new high street organised crime unit to bring together government, law enforcement and partners. Over and over again, we have seen that a committed approach to data sharing and understanding the role of local government alongside intelligence from local policing can really make a difference in closing down illegal businesses.

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    I thank my hon. Friend for reiterating that important point. The Government will make changes here in Westminster, but we have to ensure that those changes are embedded in our local communities, so that local authorities feel they have the agency, the powers and the resources they need to implement those changes, and that local businesses know what the legislative framework is so that good businesses feel they are supported and illegal businesses know that they cannot get away with it. In essence, that is what helps to build thriving communities for our high streets and town centres.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Street Regeneration and Unlawful Storefronts

    Let me just address the points on business rates, Ms Vaz. Members will recognise that business rates are a long-standing issue. The Government are determined to remove barriers to investment. That is why we have introduced new multipliers that are worth over £1 billion per year and benefit more than 750,000 properties. They will give long-term certainty to high streets and businesses. We know that the cut must be a sustainably funded model, so the Government are paying for it through a high-value multiplier on the top 1% of the most expensive properties. Pressures on businesses are complicated. Business rates play a part, but viable businesses depend on footfall, place-making of a high street and support from agencies such as the local authority and the public sector. A number of points have been raised, including about the importance of footfall, the role of public services relocating into high streets, making sure that family hubs exist where there is footfall, and densification through things such as banking hubs. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and I thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove again for securing such an important debate.

    Hansard source