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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Streets

    Thank you, Sir John. As I look around the Chamber, I see that some of the Members who were here earlier are still here. I thought I might get away with repeating much of what I said this morning—but then I saw that you were chairing the debate, so I will have to say some other things, but in absolutely the same spirit with which I spoke this morning. This is such an important topic. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this debate: high streets matter to every Member of Parliament because they matter to everybody up and down the country and across the devolved nations. They symbolise the places where people live, the communities that they are part of and the places that they identify with. They are more than just bricks and mortar; they are also the spirit of where individuals live and the communities that they are part of. Like every Member here, when considering this debate I thought about the high street in my own constituency. I thought about the brilliant businesses in Barking that I have had the pleasure of coming across since being elected; they include businesses from the beauty industry, which I hosted in Parliament last year, and other businesses too. I thought about the fact that high streets have so fundamentally changed in recent years. The hon. Member for East Londonderry is absolutely right that the challenges we face exist in every corner of the country, but every high street and town centre should be different because they are about the character of that place. We must help different businesses to thrive and give local communities the power to shape their high streets for the better. The Government are taking action on that, whether through the £300 million of funding to support those efforts or the £10 million used to expand high street rental auctions, which Members have already referenced. That has been successful at tackling the issue of empty shops. We are launching a £61 million fund as part of Pride in Place, and the community right to buy fund is also making a difference.

    Hansard source
  21. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Streets

    I thank the hon. Member for raising Cornwall; he and his fellow Cornish Members of Parliament make excellent representations. He eloquently set out the case for giving power back to local areas. I know he is disappointed that Cornwall has not secured Pride in Place funding, but he will forgive me for recognising that lots of other places have. They are celebrating that as they should, because Pride in Place funding provides an opportunity for areas to regenerate their high streets. Perhaps even more importantly, Pride in Place provides a different way of doing things, because the boards allow communities to shape what the money is spent on over a longer period of time. Funding is important, but it is not the complete answer. We need indeed a radical rethink of how high streets work. Although retail remains important, high streets cannot rely on it solely; online shopping will remain, so we need to be more creative, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry recognised. High streets must become more diverse. They need to include hospitality, leisure, public services, and art and culture.

    Hansard source
  22. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Streets

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Diversification is very important in town centres. It drives footfall, which is what keeps high streets alive. Footfall, coupled with having money to spend, will mean that businesses can thrive. The Government are committed to publishing our high streets strategy, which looks at all the elements referred to already in the debate. We have announced funding for innovation partnerships to support local communities to reimagine and revive struggling high streets and make them purposeful and fit for the future.

    Hansard source
  23. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Streets

    I know my hon. Friend’s area well, and she does good work not only to champion it but to campaign for improvement. She is absolutely right: if local communities have a real say, and that is coupled with backing from central Government, we can see real progress in our high streets and towns. That is important not only for local communities to feel ownership and pride; it is also crucial for employment. High streets are often where young people go for their first jobs. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy for many towns, so being able to support high streets, including through the high streets strategy, is a crucial part of the Government’s agenda. The hon. Member for East Londonderry was absolutely right to talk about the opportunity to relocate public services to high streets, which could improve the accessibility of those public services, as well as drive footfall and boost vibrancy. Many places are already doing that effectively.

    Hansard source
  24. ParliamentLabourNesil Caliskan

    High Streets

    On car parks in particular, a review is under way; I am happy to write to the hon. Member to set out timelines for when we will have the responses. The point about rural communities is important, which is exactly why the Government are committing to making sure that while we do what we can from central Government, we really allow communities to shape their own services locally. The density point is important, particularly for rural communities. Banking hubs, for example, have been a real lifeline for communities that have had no banks in their area. As a Government, we have committed to almost 300 hubs; more than 230 have already opened. It is important that we commit to more initiatives like that, so that high streets get the support that they need. As I say, there are good examples of public services locations. Barnsley, for instance, has opened a community diagnostic centre in its Glass Works shopping centre; that has led to more screenings and fewer missed appointments, and has brought a £3 million boost to the local economy. I could list many examples from across the country that really make the point that the relationship between the relocation of public services and our high streets can be a powerful tool in regenerating our high streets. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been working closely with other Government Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, to encourage them to roll out like health centres in other locations. I recognise that we have to go further. With local community leaders, we have to think about how central Government can be more strategic and purposeful and how we can support those leaders to deliver locally. We have to work with local government and mayoral strategic authorities so that devolution and reorganisation can lead to tangible improvements on high streets. Local capacity is an issue for local authorities, which is why MHCLG is committed to supporting local councils to shape high streets in a way that works for local residents. We are bringing vacant shops back into use and tackling the perverse incentive that makes shops remain empty. As I said, high street rental auctions have already proved successful—we have been oversubscribed, which is why we are expanding the programme. We are supporting local authorities by upskilling local authority officers so that they can use compulsory purchase order powers to bring landlords to the table, enabling more transformational change for areas that have a particular problem with empty shops. The national planning policy framework is playing a role in some of that work, too. Finally, I will address business rates. Many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are grappling with rising costs. We are committed to supporting high street businesses so that they can compete with online and out-of-town alternatives. Most of that is about appropriate place making, but we are also reducing the burden of business rates on independent high street businesses and introducing permanently lower business rate multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, giving greater certainty and long-term support. The new multipliers are worth £1 billion per year, will benefit more than 750,000 properties and will give long-term certainty and support to high streets. I thank Members for their contributions. I recognise that high streets are a topic that people feel passionate about, and rightly so. They are intrinsic to constituents’ identity and local place. I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry again for securing the debate. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
  25. ParliamentLabourNeil Duncan-Jordan

    Department for Work and Pensions

    Our social security system acts as the bedrock of our welfare state, but for years, the safety net it was meant to provide has developed more and more holes through which some of our most vulnerable citizens have fallen. For our older generation, the state pension is absolutely the foundation on which a decent retirement can be built. The interim report of the new Pensions Commission explains that 50% of working age adults are under-saving, that pensioner poverty is persistent and that the state pension represents three quarters of income in retirement for the lowest income groups, and that is set to grow. The fact is that if someone is low paid when they are at work, they will have an inadequate pension in retirement. That is why we need to acknowledge the importance of the triple lock, which has been key to raising the incomes of some of our poorest pensioners, and why we need to see it continue. I cannot talk about pensions without calling again for those women born in the 1950s who were unaware of the changes to their state pension age to receive some form of compensation. Much has been said about the need to get young people into work, but the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper proposed removing eligibility for work-related disability benefits, known as the universal credit health element, from disabled people who are under 22. We know that 94% of households with a young person claiming UC health would be in poverty if that support were cut. Abandoning the cut would make it clear that this Government are here to help people get on, not punish them for the barriers they may face. The protection offered by our social security system should be there to ensure that no one in need falls through the gaps. That is the mark of a compassionate society and something we should be proud to advance.

    Hansard source
  26. ParliamentLabourNavendu Mishra

    Defence Investment Plan

    The Secretary of State is right to say that the benefits of this plan will be felt right across the UK; it will increase exports, generate growth and reindustrialise our economy. I am proud to represent KNDS in Stockport, which manufactures military bridges and Boxer armoured vehicles. I am grateful to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry for visiting me in October for a factory tour. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the benefits of this investment are felt right across the UK, including in Stockport and Greater Manchester? In addition, Stockport is just a short drive from Barnsley; will he join me on a visit to KNDS?

    Hansard source
  27. ParliamentLabourNaushabah Khan

    High Streets

    The hon. Member is making a powerful speech. With reference to the change in the nature of our high street, he is absolutely right that online retail has taken over. Does that not mean that we need to look at a mixed-use offer that takes into account things like housing, the impact of health in the area more broadly and general disadvantage, which have an impact on how high streets look and feel for communities?

    Hansard source
  28. ParliamentLabourNaushabah Khan

    High Streets

    The Minister is making a powerful point about community partnerships and how we work together. Does she agree that involving the community in decisions about the future of the high street, as we are doing in Gillingham, is really important? It will secure the future of high streets.

    Hansard source
  29. ParliamentLabourNatalie Fleet

    Domestic Abuse and Public Life

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for raising this vital issue, and for her continued advocacy for victims and survivors of domestic abuse everywhere. There are parts of this job that I find really difficult, and I know that my hon. Friend shares that. And then there are parts of being here, in this Chamber and on these Benches, that are the most incredible privilege. As I sit here, as a Minister, to be able to hear your testimony as a survivor—sorry, I mean my hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
  30. ParliamentLabourNatalie Fleet

    Domestic Abuse and Public Life

    Thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the most incredible privilege to be here in this Chamber to hear how my hon. Friend triumphed against the most horrendous abuse and to see her surrounded by her colleagues in the most supportive way possible. That feels like a real privilege, and I am very grateful to have been here for that moment. My hon. Friend championed the importance of a whole system approach to domestic abuse and violence against women and girls more broadly. I also know how hard it is to come forward and share experiences of abuse. I am proud to use my platform to shine a light on the challenges many victims and survivors face, and I know that so many will have been listening to my hon. Friend’s account this evening and will take strength from it. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that tackling VAWG is a top priority for this Government. We have made it a mission to halve these crimes in a decade. Domestic abuse and violence against women and girls are the source of untold harm. The abuse can remain hidden, regardless of a person’s lifestyle, their social circles and their profession, including people in public life. It is something that affects every single part of society, and too often it is still hidden and accepted as part of everyday life. That is why this debate is so important, and I am so grateful for my hon. Friend’s testimony and campaigning on this issue. Her bravery and honesty, and that of other survivors, is crucial. Only by listening to those who have first-hand experience can we continue to champion and advocate for victims of these crimes. The Government have been clear that things must change. Our violence against women and girls strategy is driving that change by strengthening early intervention, pursuing perpetrators at every turn, and giving victims the best possible support. It is about not just responding to harms after they happen but focusing on stopping them in the first place. We are taking clear steps to challenge attitudes, norms and behaviours that allow abuse to continue. Through the updated relationship and sexual health education curriculum, we are giving our children the tools to spot and challenge unhealthy relationship dynamics. We are delivering “Enough”, our behaviour change campaign, to help young men and boys reflect on and question harmful behaviours that have absolutely become normalised. By raising awareness across our society, spotting those early signs, and teaching everyone to challenge those behaviours, I hope that we continue to reduce the shame and stigma that stop people seeking help early. We are taking a victim-centred approach to tackling violence against women and girls by investing £550 million to pay for counselling, court guidance and children’s services to support victims. In the Home Office, I am proud that this month we launched a £24 million competition for helpline and advocacy services. Those specialist helplines are for minority groups and will help victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, honour-based abuse, intimate image abuse, and stalking. We have worked hard to secure multi-year funding that will give our services more certainty and reassurance. If we are going to make real change in tackling VAWG, however, we need to transform how we work across the public sector and services. We need a whole-of-Government and a whole-of-society approach, so victims can access housing, health, justice and the support they need. We have established the National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection, so that victims receive a consistent VAWG response across our forces. Our strategy focuses on pursuing perpetrators, holding them accountable for their crimes, and managing them, wherever they are, to prevent further harm. An example of that is our domestic abuse protection orders, which bring together the strongest elements of protection orders into a single flexible order. That means that they can impose behaviour change programmes on perpetrators. The pilot has seen more victims protected and perpetrators held to account, with prison sentences able to be handed down where breaches occur. We are rolling out DAPOs across England and Wales as soon as we can, so that more victims can benefit from the impact it is having in pilot areas. Though we are taking active steps to combat all forms of violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, there is so much more to do. My hon. Friend raised post-separation abuse. I found out today about the interventions that have been made in this area—it blew my mind that they were not always a thing. But they were not. Too often, abuse continues after a relationship has ended. That is why, in our changes to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we extended the offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to former intimate partners. We have also removed the requirement for the victim and perpetrator to live together, to reflect that this can happen once the ex-partner has left the property. As technology advances, it amplifies the scale, severity and reach of abuse. That is why the VAWG strategy includes ambitious commitments to tackle online and technology-facilitated harm. We are already taking decisive action to protect all of us online. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced measures to ban nudification apps, and requires platforms to remove non-consensual intimate image abuse within 48 hours. On 8 June, the Prime Minister announced that Britain will be the first country to prevent children from taking, sharing and viewing nude images on their devices. My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for people like her to hold public office because of the challenges she has faced. Our democracy is richer with Members like her in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Democracies across the world need women and survivors within them. In fact, public office should be open to everyone, regardless of background. All our democracies are better for it. Again, I thank her for her campaigning in this area. My hon. Friend mentioned our sister Jo Cox and her legacy more than once. The work taking place in this space to ensure that we support each other to be here is absolutely vital. The Government absolutely recognise that MPs face abuse and intimidation, and that they have a disproportionate impact on minority groups in politics, including women and those from minority ethnic backgrounds. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we are working with policing and electoral partners to ensure that candidates and elected officials are safe while campaigning and when in office. The taskforce is driving a whole-of-Government approach to tackle abuse targeted at elected officials and has taken steps to make it safer to stand for and be elected to public office. We continue to review and develop our approach, working with partners across law enforcement, Parliament and the third sector to identify and address any gaps in our response. On vexatious civil court proceedings, the Government are absolutely committed to preventing courts from being used as tools of abuse by perpetrators. We recognise the damage that vexatious litigation has on individuals. In England and Wales, the courts have several mechanisms to protect individuals from being subjected to repeated meritless or abusive litigation. Most commonly, a party can seek a civil restraint order, which restricts a person from making further applications or issuing claims without the court’s permission where those applications have been found totally without merit. CROs can range from limited orders, which apply only to current proceedings, to extended or general orders to prevent wider use of the court system without prior approval. In more extreme cases of persistent abuse, the High Court may declare an individual a vexatious litigant under section 42 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. If this happens, the individual must obtain permission before bringing forward any new proceedings. Along with those measures, courts must also strike out baseless claims and impose cost sanctions. In certain circumstances, where litigation forms part of a pattern of harassment, injunctive relief may be available. Together, these remedies help to ensure that individuals are protected from repeated unfounded claims while preserving the integrity of the justice system. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I have refrained from commenting on any individual case, but I will say that listening to the personal accounts in this debate has been an incredibly moving experience. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not just the powerful and thought-provoking contribution we heard tonight, but the contributions she continues to make across the House. I have heard her. As I hope has been clear from my response, the Government’s commitment to tackle domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is total. We have taken important steps forward, especially with our VAWG strategy to improve criminal justice outcomes, restore trust in policing and ensure that tackling domestic abuse and violence against women and girls is everyone’s problem. However, we all know that there is more to do. Across Government, Parliament, policing and beyond, we all must now step up our efforts to prevent abuse and protect the vulnerable as we work towards halving VAWG in a decade. I have been able to set out the measures that the Government are taking and where there is more that we can do, but I cannot overstate how powerful it is for survivors everywhere to see a survivor raising this issue here, surrounded by a group of her peers who support her without question. I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution tonight. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
  31. ParliamentLabourMs Polly Billington

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    As my hon. Friend knows, the other part of that project is hosted partly in my constituency, and we agree that £2.1 million is a rounding error in the National Grid’s project budget. Does she agree that if we are to establish properly the principle of host communities being able to truly benefit from the energy infrastructure that they will be home to, there should be proper accountability? An energy foundation should be established to benefit that community for energy purposes, rather than it being bought off with playgrounds or university fees for a handful of residents.

    Hansard source
  32. ParliamentLabourMs Polly Billington

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    I recognise what my hon. Friend says, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) pointed out, these are guidelines at the moment rather than obligations. Because they are only guidelines, they can be ignored. Including things like jobs and traineeships within the community allowance limits the genuine potential benefit for host communities. We are grateful that we now have biodiversity net gain for nationally significant infrastructure projects. There should be a similar obligation to make sure that communities benefit and have ownership of and accountability for how that money is spent. I will say this now on the record: £2.1 million, as my hon. Friend said, is a rounding error. That should be multiplied by 10 if we are really going to get the benefit for our communities in the long term.

    Hansard source
  33. ParliamentLabourMs Polly Billington

    Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects

    That is definitely the case for renewable energy generation projects, but we are talking about infrastructure projects. There needs to be some kind of mechanism by which we have some ownership and accountability for the communities that are hosting infrastructure projects. There particularly needs to be an energy foundation that allows them to reduce their energy bills, which would also take some of the overall burden off the grid.

    Hansard source
  34. ParliamentLabourMs Julie Minns

    Prison Smuggling: Drones

    10. What steps he is taking to help tackle the smuggling of contraband by drones into prisons.

    Hansard source
  35. ParliamentLabourMs Julie Minns

    Prison Smuggling: Drones

    Will my right hon. Friend outline what learnings the Government have taken from international expertise to develop and shape counter-drone measures in UK prisons?

    Hansard source
  36. ParliamentLabourMr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi

    Defence Investment Plan

    I thank the Secretary of State for the ministerial briefing beforehand and for allowing Defence Committee members advanced sight of the defence investment plan. I also welcome that we now have a fully funded plan, backed by the Treasury, that is scalable for key facets such as housing, training, workforce recovery, AI, integrated air and missile defence, and munition stockpiles. However, there is no clear pathway to reach 3% of GDP spend. Despite assurances that the DIP would go further than previous defence equipment plans, it actually contains less detail: there is no full 10-year expenditure plan; there is no breakdown between procurement and support costs; and much of the investment appears to be backloaded beyond 2030. Will my right hon. Friend commit to fight for more funding for defence, so we reach the 3% of GDP spend by 2030? Will he commit to building more in Britain to stimulate sovereignty and economic growth? What operational risks have been accepted in the interim while there have been cuts to investment in certain areas? When will our Committee be furnished with the full details, so that effective parliamentary scrutiny can be undertaken?

    Hansard source
  37. ParliamentLabourMr Luke Charters

    Financial Inclusion: Young People

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on a terrific speech and on gathering us in Westminster Hall today. May I take a moment to take you back to your first job, Sir John? I am sure you will remember your pride at bringing home your first payslip. In today’s society, young people are turning to TikTok for beauty advice, fashion trends or the latest dance craze. It is where they learn how to spend their hard-earned cash, but it has also become a place of toxic finfluencers, where so-called get-rich-quick opportunities are being targeted at young people. All of a sudden, things on social media can start to feel slightly odd, because for young people those opportunities are often promoted on familiar apps that they know, in formats that they recognise and delivered by people who seem relatable. An influencer who a young person might like may appear to be educating them about money, as perhaps a big brother or sister would, but we often find that those types of ads and reels can become exploitative. As a former Financial Conduct Authority regulator, I think we are now entering a phase of TikTokification of financial advice. The FCA, my old place of work, must be commended on its work on financial promotions, but unfortunately it has found that in some cases the majority of TikTok ads breach its finprom rules. I call on social media giants and big tech to do more to take heed from the FCA’s work on two fronts. First, social media giants must ensure that finfluencers properly declare any conflict of interest. Secondly, there must be greater education, almost like public good messaging inbuilt into the algorithms, where officially verified types of financial education filter through them. Aviva found that one in five children under 16 are now getting financial information from social media platforms, and only one in eight said that they would get their financial advice from school or college, so the math really ain’t mathing. Boys in particular are being brought via the toxic hinterlands of the manosphere into Ponzi schemes and get-rich-quick schemes linked to body dysmorphia and other dangerous influences in the manosphere, which is an important link. A good way to get young people into healthy financial habits is through savings. Gordon Brown understood that, as shown through the child trust fund, which was scrapped in 2011. Today, a child born into a family with money is likely to have a junior ISA opened in their name, as I have done for my children. Compound interest works favourably over the years, so by the time those young people are adults, they have a foundation that can act as a springboard for life. We need to have that nudge theory built into the system from the start. We have to think about how products delivered by fintechs can get young people saving. I will briefly touch on fraud, because I am concerned that many of the social media ads I talk about are fraudulent. Some 47% of 18 to 34-year-olds have lost money to scams in the past year. The average loss is three grand; that is over a month’s wages. It could be the first home deposit wiped out in one. That is what financial exclusion does. I am particularly thankful to the hon. Members who have mentioned the car insurance market. There is a phenomenon called ghost broking, where fraudulent car insurance—insurance that does not really exist—is sold to young people. They are a young driver, they think “premiums are high”, they are sold a pup and an insurance policy that does not exist. They then get into an accident, and things go wrong from there. I would like to see social media companies and the Government prioritise ghost broking and for them to listen to the Association of British Insurers’ work on that. I want my two boys to grow up in a world in which the first financial lessons they receive come not from a stranger with a ring light and a referral code, but from good, hard-working northerners who know how to match that graft with good financial advice. I think that is the world all of us want to see when it comes to sound financial education for all.

    Hansard source
  38. ParliamentLabourMr Jonathan Brash

    Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

    The world has moved on and we no longer live in a free trade utopia, as some might wish. It is clearly difficult to impose protections for our steel industry, but it is the right thing to do. Does the Minister agree that failing to impose such protections would surrender our steel industry, surrender our national defence and surrender our sovereignty to other nations, which can never be acceptable?

    Hansard source
  39. ParliamentLabourMr James Frith

    Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026.  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the Committee for considering this instrument today. Wireless connectivity underpins a vast range of everyday services, from mobile phones and wi-fi to broadcasting and satellite communications. All of those rely on access to radio spectrum, the invisible frequencies that carry wireless signals. Spectrum is a finite and valuable resource. It must be carefully managed to ensure that different services can operate without interference, that networks function reliably and that consumers and businesses benefit from competition and innovation. In the UK that is the responsibility of Ofcom, the independent communications regulator, which manages spectrum by issuing licences, setting conditions and promoting efficient use. The Government set the overall policy and strategic priorities, including through the statement of strategic priorities.

    Hansard source
  40. ParliamentLabourMr James Frith

    Draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) (Revocation) Order 2026

    I will conclude my remarks and perhaps pick up that question in my closing speech, which I am looking forward to making. Maintaining a clear and effective framework for managing spectrum is therefore an important part of supporting investment in digital infrastructure and the wider economy. The instrument contributes to that by improving legal clarity without changing existing services, business models or regulatory requirements. The draft order revokes a direction given to Ofcom in 2010. At the time, the Government used the direction to ensure that a specific set of reforms to support the roll-out of mobile broadband were implemented clearly and at pace alongside Ofcom’s existing statutory framework, and in line with wider European measures to harmonise the use of key spectrum bands. Those measures included allowing operators greater flexibility in how they could use key spectrum bands, enabling spectrum licences to be bought and sold, updating licence conditions to support long-term investment and preparing for major spectrum auctions. Together, those changes helped operators to transition from older mobile technologies towards newer ones, enabling the roll-out of 3G and 4G services more quickly and efficiently, and supporting the widespread availability of modern mobile services across the UK. The reforms were also reflected in wider European measures to harmonise the use of key mobile spectrum bands and support the transition to newer technologies. They played a significant role in enabling the roll-out of modern mobile networks in the UK and in promoting investment and competition in the sector. All the obligations set out in the direction have now been fully implemented by Ofcom through a series of regulatory actions over the past decade. As a result, the direction no longer has any practical effect and is now redundant. The instrument therefore revokes that direction, improving the clarity of the legal framework and removing the risk of confusion that could arise from retaining obsolete provisions. For example, when Ofcom looks to set annual licence fees for mobile spectrum, we want to minimise the risk of unnecessary legal challenge. The instrument does not introduce any new policy or change the way spectrum is managed in the UK. Ofcom will continue to exercise its functions under the existing statutory framework, including the duties set out in the Communications Act 2003 and the powers under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. They provide the framework for managing spectrum efficiently, promoting competition and investment, and protecting consumers. That step helps to ensure that the framework underpinning wireless connectivity remains clear and effective, supporting continued investment, innovation and reliable services for consumers and businesses. I hope the Committee will support this instrument.

    Hansard source