House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I thank NHS staff and care workers for their tireless work, but I also understand the frustration felt by people in Wales that waiting lists are going up under the Plaid Cymru Government. Just last week the Chancellor announced an additional £450 million for the Welsh Government to deliver public services. That is on top of the largest spending review settlement since devolution. I hope that the Welsh Government use this funding wisely to improve NHS services and reduce waiting lists.
Shivani Raja
Welsh Government figures show that, as of March 2025, there were more than 30,000 Welsh people waiting for NHS treatment in England, which is almost three times the number in 2011. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government about managing this cross-border demand, reducing waiting times in Wales and ensuring that services in England have the capacity to meet the needs of patients on both sides of the border?
Anna McMorrin
Wales is the home of the NHS, and I am proud of the way that Welsh Labour has always been its fiercest defender, even in the face of Tory austerity. Welsh Labour brought those waiting lists down for 10 consecutive months before the last election. They are now rising under the Plaid Cymru Government, and we need to see clear action from the Welsh Government to bring them down. We regularly have discussions on how we can do that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As the Minister has just said, NHS waiting lists have soared to a 10-month high since Plaid Cymru’s election, despite the progress that was being made as they came down under Welsh Labour. Will the Minister join me in urging Plaid to make cutting waiting lists a priority, especially as we enter these winter months, when NHS pressures are at their greatest?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Waiting lists are going up under Plaid Cymru after the Welsh Labour Government brought them down for 10 months straight. Welsh Labour has always prioritised the NHS, including through free prescriptions, mental health support via 111, free car parking in hospitals, women’s health hubs and specialist mental health support in every school. Those were Welsh Labour decisions based on Welsh Labour values, and I urge the Plaid Cymru Government to honour them, perhaps by using the £450 million in additional funding that this UK Labour Government announced at the Budget just last week.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
This was a proudly Labour Budget that provides people in Wales with breathing space for today and hope for tomorrow. We are helping Welsh families with the cost of living by extending 0% VAT on electricity bills, getting rid of gas standing charges and removing the 4% tariff on heating oil to support 105,000 households in Wales.
Llinos Medi
The autumn Budget will deliver real-terms cuts to Welsh public services, because it fails to “compensate for higher inflation.” Those are not my words, but those of Cardiff University, which says that Wales now faces “difficult choices”, including cuts to local authorities such as mine on Ynys Môn. Can the Secretary of State explain why this UK Labour Government are imposing cuts on Welsh public services?
Stephen Kinnock
I genuinely do not know where Plaid Cymru is getting these numbers from. This Budget provides the Welsh Government with an additional £450 million for public services, meaning that the Welsh Government settlement continues to grow in real terms over the spending review period. In addition, the UK Government are providing a £6.5 billion increase in Welsh Government spending power as a result of changes to the fiscal framework, additional funding through the Barnett formula and the largest settlement in the history of devolution. This generational increase in 2025 was the largest settlement for Wales since devolution began in the late 1990s.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a further £30 million for the delivery of a new station at Cardiff Parkway, in a constituency that neighbours mine. Does the Secretary of State agree that this investment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Plaid minority Government at Cardiff Bay, who are threatening to close numerous junctions of the M4, worsening air and noise pollution for my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. The Welsh Government must recognise that only a relief road will address the needs of the people, the economy and the environment of south-east Wales. What local people do not need is disruption and junction closures. I was pleased to see the Senedd support Welsh Labour’s motion to rule out closures and to begin work on an appropriate relief road for the M4, and I urge Plaid Cymru to work with Newport council and to reconsider its position.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It was a damp squib Budget that largely forgot Wales. It had nothing on upgrading the A55 or the M4 bypass. The previous Welsh Government were offered the finance by the previous Conservative Government to unclog the Brynglas tunnels, but the Minister’s Labour Senedd colleagues—as we have heard—had the hide last month to call for an M4 relief road, despite being in power for 27 years. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour is now making calls on projects it could and should have delivered when in power, or do they prefer to be the ones shouting from the hard shoulder?
Stephen Kinnock
I am taken aback by the brass neck of the Conservatives, after 14 years of neglect and incompetence, the failure to fund rail, and the failure to fix so many of the problems that they caused. I am very pleased that the Welsh Labour motion in the Senedd was approved, and we call on the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to change tack, reconsider and do the right thing for the people of Wales.
Mims Davies
That is a screeching U-turn for us all to see. As we have heard today, matters could go from bad to horrendous for M4 drivers. With the separatist Plaid Cymru Welsh Government now threatening to close multiple junctions, the Wales Office has sat on its hands. Compare that to my Conservative colleagues and me, who scrapped the Severn bridge tolls. Where is the action? Where is the pushback? After this failure, can the Secretary of State tell us why drivers and businesses should have any confidence that the Labour Government will stand up to Plaid for them?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady talked about the Budget. I remind her of what the Budget does for drivers: it extends the temporary 5p per litre fuel duty cut for a further six months; it makes permanent the 55p per mile tax-free mileage rate for the first 10,000 business miles, which will save a worker travelling 6,000 business miles at least £120 a year in tax from 2027-28; and it extends the 3.7p cut to red diesel duty to 1 July 2027. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she has another look at the Budget and comes back when she has got her facts right.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Communities across Wales are desperate to see economic growth and new jobs, and that is why the Welsh Liberal Democrats believe that Wales needs more powers, including powers over borrowing, full powers over rail infrastructure and full powers over the Crown estate. Does the Secretary of State agree and, if so, will Wales get more powers during this Parliament?
Stephen Kinnock
I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in the forthcoming leadership election—I believe he is standing against himself, so I am sure he will have a positive outcome. He mentioned rail, and I am delighted that we have secured at least £445 million to progress rail projects across Wales, including £30 million for Cardiff Parkway, which is front-loaded to support delivery of Welsh priorities during the spending review period. I am sure that he and his party will join me in welcoming those measures.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister promised to end 40 years of Thatcherite ideology, but last week’s Budget was a whimper, not a reset. A poll since the Budget found that 60% of voters believe that it merely tinkers around the edges, and in Wales we can see why—real-terms cuts loom for public services, we see a shrinking capital budget and there is no meaningful movement on rail funding. Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people in Wales feel that the Budget falls so far short of the promises talked up by his Government?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, but again I am not sure that those on the Opposition Benches are clear about what the Budget will deliver. In addition to all the breathing space measures, which are making a clear difference to the cost of living, we have £30 million on Cardiff Parkway railway station, £2.5 million on new funding for M-Sparc, £11 million for the Aberavon bridge and £20 million to support reindustrialisation in AI sectors, and that is on top of all the work we are doing on nuclear power at Wylfa and revitalising the Welsh steel industry. With all due respect, she too should have another look at the Budget and come back when she has got her facts straight.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Secretary of State did not mention the £14 billion that has been promised, or the £300 million for Leeds railway station.
There are threats of cuts everywhere. The BBC has announced £9 million of cuts at BBC Cymru Wales, including 58 job losses. Twenty hours of programming, as well as radio shows such as “Dros Ginio” and “Ar y Marc”, will be axed, and Welsh production companies are raising the alarm about the impact of fewer commissions. We have had to fight hard for Welsh-language broadcasting. What is the Secretary of State doing, as Wales’s supposed man in the Cabinet, to protect jobs and safeguard our national media?
Stephen Kinnock
I am proud to be a strong voice for Wales in the Cabinet. Frankly, I find it shocking that those on the Opposition Benches think that Wales should not have a strong voice in the Cabinet. We are ready to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that our broadcasting industry, which we are very proud of, continues to go from strength to strength. I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues to achieve that objective.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
The UK Government are committed to driving economic growth in Wales. We are investing £2.6 billion to bring nuclear power back to Wylfa, £500 million to secure the future of Welsh steel, and £50 million to support defence jobs across Wales.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He and I both know that when it comes to driving economic growth, whether it is in Wales or Northern Ireland, we are always better together. Given that both Wales and Northern Ireland face similar challenges with rural economic development and in supporting our vital small business sectors, what specific lessons has the Department shared with the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Executive to ensure that targeted regional growth strategies work collectively to strengthen the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman mentions rural economic development. We are extending the 3.7p cut to red diesel to July 2027, and suspending tariffs on fertiliser. We are removing the 4% tariff on heating oil, which will support 105,000 Welsh households, and I am sure that many of his constituents will also benefit. We had productive talks at the National Economic Council in Glasgow. Of course, it was unfortunate that the Northern Irish Government were not represented in those talks, but we will certainly continue to work closely with the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure strong co-operation and collaboration across all the nations that make up our United Kingdom.
Steve Witherden
The Access for All programme is 20 years old this year, yet much work is to be done on making travel easier for rail passengers with mobility constraints. For example, the northbound platform at Ruabon station, in my constituency, still has no step-free access and is in desperate need of a ramp or, better yet, a lift. What steps is the Department taking to improve accessibility at Welsh railway stations?
Stephen Kinnock
I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend last week, when we discussed Ruabon station. My officials have since raised this project with Network Rail. I am very pleased to confirm that the UK Government have announced Ruabon as one of the 23 stations across Great Britain that have been selected to progress to the next stage of the Access for All programme. I look forward to further engagement with my hon. Friend on this hugely important project, which I believe includes the installation of what is known in the trade as a jack-in-the-box lift.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
This Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war by investing £298 billion over the next four years to strengthen our national security and keep us safe. Wales is well placed to benefit from this investment, with 20,000 defence jobs already in Wales. Every pound that we invest in defence should be judged by what it does. We want to ensure that all investment brings jobs and skills, and strengthens our national security.
Carolyn Harris
It is disappointing to see the Plaid Welsh Government decide to delay defence investment decisions in Wales, including on DARC—the deep space advanced radar capability—in Pembrokeshire. Welsh Labour will always take the defence of Wales seriously, even if Plaid will not. Can the Minister update me on the Welsh Government’s commitment to establishing defence technical excellence colleges in Wales, so we can get on with training up the next generation of defence experts?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Labour will always put the defence and security of the Welsh people first. That is why we announced last week that, if the Welsh Government continue to drag their feet on committing to a Wales defence technical excellence college, the UK Government stand ready to step in where Plaid will not. With the Scottish Government already making clear their commitment to DTECs in Scotland, I strongly urge the Welsh Plaid Cymru Government to come to the table and work with us, so that we can protect our security and create the jobs of the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax programme at the General Dynamics land systems factory is obviously a huge employer in Merthyr Tydfil, but with the Government unable to get Ajax back on track and no guarantee of any defence exports, all work at the factory is due to stop after the vehicles have been upgraded to capability drop 4. What are the Government doing to ensure that the jobs at that factory remain beyond the completion of the work on the Ajax programme?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member makes a very good point. General Dynamics is a very important company, and I have had many conversations with it about its investment and the continuation of the Ajax programme. We know about the challenges that the programme has encountered, but considerable efforts have been made to resolve them and drive forward the programme. That organisation invests hugely in the local community, delivering high-quality jobs, and part of our £50 million defence growth deal is to ensure that this will continue well into the future.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Welsh defence industry supports 20,000 jobs and is absolutely vital to the national security of the United Kingdom, yet defence firms face growing uncertainty over the UK Government’s failure to set out a detailed plan to meet the 3% of GDP target on defence spending and Plaid Cymru’s proposed defence ethical investment framework in Wales, which are both creating serious concern for businesses looking to invest, expand and protect jobs. Therefore, what discussions has the Minister had with defence companies about these concerns, and what is she doing to give the industry the certainty it desperately needs?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but I think he may have a short memory. It was his Government who cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleonic times and short-changed the equipment plan by £17 billion. In stark contrast, this Chancellor announced a £298 billion investment in defence over the next four years. We are working at pace to deliver the development growth deal across the country, with high-quality jobs and investment across Wales. I am urging the Plaid Cymru Government to stop at nothing, to work with us and to ensure that we deliver security for the people of Wales and those high-quality jobs.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Whether it is through Wales’s role in bolstering the UK’s defence and steel production, or leading the way in industries such as compound semiconductors and the life sciences, our Union of nations is hugely strengthened by Wales. We cannot put a ceiling on the awesome talent and ambition of the Welsh people, and I simply cannot understand why Plaid Cymru is hellbent on doing so.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I was shocked to see the front page of the Western Mail last week, which said:
“Free milk scheme for pupils could be scrapped”.
I thought we had gone back in time to the infamous milk snatcher, Margaret Thatcher, but no, it was the modern-day Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that scrapping free school milk would be a backward step, and will he commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Union means more opportunities for our children in Wales, not fewer?
Stephen Kinnock
Well, I have to say that when Plaid won in May, I did not have Thatcherism 2.0 on my bingo card. First, Plaid dragged its feet on additional learning needs funding; then it refused to commit to Flying Start; and now it may be targeting free school milk. My hon. Friend is right: the Plaid Welsh Government should be supporting children and families, just as this UK Labour Government have by scrapping the two-child cap, which will be hugely beneficial for nearly 70,000 Welsh children.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
One would hope that any Union would be a Union of equals, in which equal partners listen to each other with mutual respect. May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to check his facts, as he has asked Plaid Members to check theirs? Can he confirm that the UK Government have listened to the Welsh Government on the Cynnal child payment pilot? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not count this payment as income, so that families do not lose out on the other benefit support that they need?
Stephen Kinnock
We have a shared priority with devolved Governments to tackle child poverty, so that no child living in poverty in the UK is left behind. Child poverty is a significant challenge, and reducing it over the next 10 years will require ongoing commitment and collaboration, particularly through the implementation phase. We are open to exploring the Welsh Government’s Cynnal pilot and we will continue to engage with them on the details.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on defence and many other matters. We are fully funding the £15 billion defence investment plan, strengthening our armed forces, investing in cutting-edge technology and creating nearly 60,000 additional industry jobs across the UK. Continued uncertainty around the Welsh Government’s approach to defence, and delays to important projects such as DARC—Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability—risk deterring investment and jobs from Wales, as well as risking our national security.
John Cooper
Plaid, the SNP and Sinn Féin: the separatist cabal trying to break up Britain, with little regard for UK defence. In Scotland, we already have a hostile environment for our critical defence industry. What can the Secretary of State do in Wales to prevent the same fate befalling key workers there?
Anna McMorrin
This is absolutely such a critical industry and topic for our country to work on together as a strong United Kingdom. The dither and delay from the Plaid Welsh Government is undermining our Welsh defence sector. It is having a very real impact on jobs, investment and opportunities, and our communities deserve better. I once again urge the Plaid Welsh Government to work with us and stop the delay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The deployment of military personnel to deal with wildfires in Wales was very important this summer. Does the Minister agree that, now that UK and Welsh Government summits have taken place and there is additional money in the Welsh budget, we need a plan on wildfire prevention and resilience ahead of next summer?
Anna McMorrin
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work with his community, and the commoners and firefighters in his constituency. I also pay tribute to all our firefighters and military for their role in fighting the wildfires this summer. The Welsh and UK Governments held summits last month and set out a route forward, including the UK Government equipping RAF helicopters to fight fires in remote areas. That is absolutely essential. The Welsh Government are looking to bring in international expertise. This is yet another example of the importance and power of cross-border collaboration.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Cross-border travel is crucial to unlocking economic growth and employment opportunities. We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail, including in the Burns stations in South Wales, to improve cross-border connectivity and to help tackle congestion on the M4, a vital economic link between Wales and England. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen not to proceed with the M4 relief road.
Dr Evans
One of the biggest straitjackets on economic growth east to west is the “most-bashed bridge in Britain” on the A5 in my patch: the Watling Street bridge. There are plans to lower the road underneath it, but they seem to have stalled. Will the Minister speak with the Transport Secretary to see what can be done to get those plans unstuck, so that the road can be lowered and we can get Britain moving again?
Stephen Kinnock
The A5 is a hugely important cross-border artery, so it is vital to ensure that traffic can flow smoothly. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me on the subject, I would be happy to follow up with officials and the Secretary of State for Transport.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I was very surprised last week to hear the Plaid Cymru Transport Minister calling rail funding of £445 million from the UK Government an “insult”. Does the Minister agree that squabbling about cross-border transport gets us nowhere, and that the Welsh and UK Governments must work together to get spades in the ground for the Magor and Undy Walkway station?
Stephen Kinnock
The UK Government are making a very substantial contribution. It is vital that we invest in rail, and my hon. Friend is right that we now have to ensure that we get those spades in the ground. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work closely with the Welsh Government, Transport for Wales, Network Rail and others to ensure that we get those projects up and running as rapidly as possible.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire and his delegation, who are with us in the Public Gallery. For her first outing in this role, I call the First Secretary of State.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The First Secretary of State (Louise Haigh)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is accompanying His Majesty the King at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. This weekend, the whole country will fall silent to mark Remembrance Sunday. We pay tribute to the men and women who have served, and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our values and freedoms. I wish a joyful and peaceful Diwali to everyone who will be celebrating. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Matthew Patrick
Giving people opportunity is the mission of our party, but for young people on the Wirral, Brexit means that they have been denied many of the opportunities that their parents enjoyed, such as the right to work, study or live anywhere across Europe. The progress being made on a sanitary and phytosanitary deal gives me real confidence and hope that we can strike a good deal with the European Union in our national interests. Can the Government go further, strike a deal for young people, and restore to them the opportunities that Brexit took away?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Brexit deal we inherited damaged our economy, weakened our ability to control immigration and took opportunities away from young people. Negotiations are ongoing, but we know that an SPS deal could add billions to our economy, cutting costs for exporters, helping supermarkets offer better prices, and supporting British farmers. We are working with the EU to create a balanced youth experience scheme that creates opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has already said that the Conservatives would rip all that up, no matter the benefits; perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments the First Secretary of State made about Remembrance Sunday, which I look forward to marking in my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar.
This year, how much will the Government spend on working-age welfare?
Louise Haigh
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to deputy leader of the Conservative party. He recently said that it was now his job to tell the Leader of the Opposition when she is getting things wrong, which must make him the busiest man in Westminster. I am sure that the whole House is right behind him as he takes on such an important job. This Government are committed to bringing the benefits bill down and dealing with the mess left behind by the previous Tory Government, on whose watch welfare rose by £88 billion in a decade.
Alex Burghart
I think it is very telling that the right hon. Lady does not want to tell us the answer to that question. The answer is £183 billion. That is the highest figure ever. It is higher than anything during covid; it is higher than spending on defence, schools and policing combined. It is nearly £10,000 for every working household in this country. Will the Government commit to bringing that bill down in this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The Government have been clear: the benefit bill will come down, and we are already taking steps to ensure that. We have rebalanced universal credit, increased face-to-face assessments, introduced a right to try work for disabled people, and introduced the youth guarantee for unemployed youth. Under previous Tory Governments—on the hon. Gentleman’s watch—the welfare bill soared by £88 billion. Nearly 3 million people were written off, with 1 million young people not in employment, education or training. That is the legacy of the previous Tory Administration. This Government are committed to tackling all of it.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady has missed the fact that the bill is higher now than it has ever been. The Government are in a complete mess on this. On Thursday morning, the Chancellor went on the BBC and was asked whether there will be cuts in welfare before the next election. He said that there will be. Cue panic in Downing Street. The Prime Minister was sent out to clarify things. He said that the welfare bill needs to come down, but that this cannot be done by cutting the welfare bill. Then, at teatime, the Chancellor conceded defeat and said,
“It’s not correct to say that we are going to bring this welfare bill down”.
Will the First Secretary of State be clear: why is Labour not going to bring the welfare bill down during this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can continue reading out his questions, but he should listen to the answers. I have repeatedly said that the benefit bill will come down, and have set out the steps that this Labour Government are already taking to bring it down. The Milburn report will report shortly, as will the Timms review. Let me set out what further choices this Labour Government are making. Last night, the Opposition walked through the Lobby to vote against every change that this Budget will deliver. [Interruption.] They cheer, but they voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. They voted against taking VAT off electricity bills. They voted against taking 70,000 small businesses out of business rates, and they voted against a tax on banks to fund it all. Perhaps he would like to explain why he did so now.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady seems to have missed out the bit where the Resolution Foundation said that this Budget would be “catastrophic” for living standards, and the bit where the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the Budget would risk 215,000 jobs through tax rises. We know that Labour cannot bring down welfare in the next three years. It has been briefed, however, that the Prime Minister is preparing a 10-year plan. I am old enough to remember Keir Starmer’s 10-year plan, because it was six months ago. This is the only political party in history to have two 10-year plans in 10 months. Given that the Labour party is experimenting with planning, can it commit to reducing this record welfare bill—the highest welfare bill ever—in its 10-year plan?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can ask me the same question four or five times; I will keep answering the same way. We are taking steps already to bring the welfare bill down, and we will take further steps. We have committed to legislating. Every week, the Conservatives bring here the same problems, and the same messes that we inherited from them—on welfare, defence, immigration and the economy. This Labour Government are committed to tackling it all. No matter what he brings, we are taking steps to deliver on all of it.
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the right hon. Lady was paying attention at the Budget, and to the figures that were published. Welfare spending will go up in every single year of this Parliament. I remember the Milburn review—a review so important that it was delayed until after the Budget. The Government are not going to fix welfare, and we know why, because the welfare Secretary told us. He said that every meeting he had with Labour MPs was about asking, “Who can we tax to pay for benefits?” It is very likely that the right hon. Lady was one of those MPs. We all remember that she led the rebellion against Keir Starmer’s very modest welfare policies. If the Government cannot reduce the welfare bill because of their Back Benchers and Front Benchers, can they at least promise that they will not put up taxes to cover these ever-increasing costs?
Louise Haigh
We have repeatedly been clear that we cannot afford to pay for failure and must invest in success. That is how we will bring the welfare bill down. We will make support more conditional on taking up opportunities, and ensure that young people get the help that they need earlier. We are tackling the long-term drivers of welfare spending, including high housing costs, and we will do all this in a Labour way.
The hon. Gentleman told a gathering of Conservative party members that they should keep apologising for the many things that they got wrong in government, but I am not sure that his colleagues got the memo. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that she was not in the Cabinet when they made mistakes on migration, but she was there at the peak of the Boriswave. The shadow Home Secretary claimed that he was not responsible for immigration policy when he was a Home Office Minister, and the shadow Chancellor still does not want blame for the mini-Budget, which was written when he was in the Treasury. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of himself and his colleagues.
Alex Burghart
We all know what the Labour way is: more tax, more welfare and more borrowing. There is no commitment to reducing welfare, and no promise not to put up tax. The Government know what needs to be done, but they do not have the bottle to do it. They are too scared to cut spending and too weak to do the right thing. They are too busy putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today, and everyone else is paying the price—the millions of people on welfare, and the millions of people picking up the bill. If Labour does not want to do the right thing, why does it not just get out of the way?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Rankin, we had a little eye contact earlier. I do not think that it looks good to try to shout down a woman. I call the First Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh
I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar regards himself as the Tories’ resident historian. In fact, he once published a paper titled “Profile of a Doomed Elite”. I am sure that the House will be as surprised as I was to learn that it was not a study of the prospects of the current shadow Cabinet.
As a student of history, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that few Governments have delivered the scale and speed of change that this Administration have in our first 100 days; we are cutting business rates for 70,000 businesses, cutting tax for entrepreneurs, cutting VAT from electricity bills to helping 20 million households with energy bills, scrapping standing charges, capping bus fares, investing in our high streets, extending parental pay and tackling rough sleeping. He does not seem impressed. Perhaps that is because the only Government who had more of an impact in a shorter space of time was the one he served under: the one led by Liz Truss.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very happy to congratulate Fleetwood Town with my hon. Friend. As a Barnsley fan, we live for those David versus Goliath moments.
We published the UK’s first ever plan to better protect people and our environment from forever chemicals earlier this year. Just this week, the UK Health and Security Agency launched its first study into the levels of forever chemicals in the population. As we continue to build the evidence, we will consider the case for any appropriate measures, including national standards to manage the risks and protect communities. The Environment Agency is supporting a thorough investigation into the Thornton-Cleveleys site and I will make sure that the DEFRA Minister of State keeps my hon. Friend updated.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the First Secretary of State about Remembrance Sunday, when we will join in honouring our service personnel and their sacrifices? May I also join her in wishing a happy Diwali to all those who celebrate?
American voters have rejected Trump’s warmongering and the economic chaos that it has caused, unlike the Conservatives and Reform who cheered on Trump’s illegal war. Trump has renewed his threat of strikes on Iran—strikes that would be devastating for security in the region and devastating for the cost of living in the UK. Will the Government stand together with our reliable allies and send a clear message to Trump and Netanyahu that there must be no more strikes?
Louise Haigh
The US is one of our most important allies and our priority, absolutely, is de-escalation. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the war in the middle east has been catastrophic for the cost of living crisis here at home, and the parties opposite, including the Tories and Reform, should consider carefully their judgment in calling for us to jump so readily into it.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful for the unequivocal response on that. The First Secretary has our backing in calling for de-escalation.
As well as the economic turmoil, the American people have also sent a message that they are sick of Trump’s scandals, from his blatant corruption to his close friendship with Epstein and most recently, emerging from the Epstein files, an allegation of rape. Will the First Secretary of State join me in saying that in this House, we will not tolerate powerful men who abuse their position against women in this Parliament or any other? Will the Government also commit to assisting any and all inquiries that the new Democratic Congress may launch?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point about the Epstein files and everything that they revealed. She is right to highlight the importance, always, of challenging power and standing on behalf of vulnerable victims.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Louise Haigh
I vividly remember visiting the station with my hon. Friend. He has been a strong campaigner on this and I know just how important it is for his constituents. We have awarded over £640 million to the Lancashire combined county authority for its local priorities, which could help deliver schemes such as this one. I know that the Rail Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the campaign.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Political stability in Northern Ireland should never, and certainly cannot now, be taken for granted. A fundamental principle in our democracy is that Ministers who take up office uphold the rule of law and support the police, the courts and our rule of law, yet the lawless First Minister of Northern Ireland and three of her Ministers have shredded their pledge and, with it, the responsibility that comes with office.
Do the First Secretary of State and our Labour Government believe in the rule of law and believe that where one errs it should not be that all are punished, that lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers, and that there therefore needs to be an amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that, in circumstances such as these, the punishment applies to those who stepped outside all respected norms and their pledge of office?
Louise Haigh
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on a live police investigation. The major problem facing Northern Ireland right now is, as he will agree, the absence of a budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is looking at how we can ensure that there is more political and financial accountability, and he will continue engaging with all Northern Ireland parties about how we move forward. Ultimately, we want calm heads to prevail and power sharing to succeed, and we want to enhance the resilience of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. We are willing to work with all parties on that, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will play his full part in getting a budget agreed.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK can be a world leader in this industry, which is why our space strategy set out over £7.8 billion of investment to strengthen our national security and resilience. I can assure him that our decisions will always prioritise economic growth and jobs here in the UK and the enhancing of our sovereign capabilities, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Space Minister will be very happy to meet him to discuss this.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with Eivie and her friend’s families and all who loved them. This is a tragic case, and one that absolutely highlights the importance of reforming SEND—I know the whole House is behind that—as we look to tackle the failures in this system that have been an issue for many years. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading the work to strengthen that system so that families do not have to fight for support, and education, health and care plans will remain part of the system. Parents will continue to be involved in decisions about their children’s support, and the tribunal will remain a key legal backstop. My right hon. Friend is more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue and the very sad case he raises.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that conditional invitation. We absolutely recognise the potential benefits that upgrades to Haughley junction could deliver for passengers and freight alike and that these must be delivered alongside rail upgrades in the Ely area. As my hon. Friend knows, both projects were cancelled by the previous Government in 2021, but I am pleased to confirm that both are now being considered for future funding, and I know the Transport Secretary will be happy to meet him to hear his case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent example of the kind of people this Government are behind and trying to help. Working people are the millions of people who put in every day and do not get back what they deserve, people who do not have savings they can dip into and pay their way out of problems, and people who rely on good public services. Those are the people who this Labour Government are delivering for and who the Budget served last week.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning on this important area and highlighting some of our most vulnerable constituents. I absolutely agree that victims and survivors of domestic abuse deserve proper and timely legal support. In recognition that individuals might not be able to access certain assets or funds, we have already updated legislation to improve the availability of legal aid for survivors of domestic abuse, which includes ensuring that £100,000 of the value of a home will not be considered in the legal aid means test. However, we will always work to ensure that victims and survivors have the support they need, and Ministers will be happy to hear any further proposals.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am happy to take that case away and raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I thank my hon. Friend. At the Budget, we made clear our commitment to creating good growth in every postcode, driving regeneration in every part of Britain. That commitment was backed by £80 million of new funding for the local renewal fund to support projects that create jobs, invest in local economic regeneration and boost growth. His proposal is a very good fit for that funding, and I will ensure he meets the relevant Minister to discuss.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. Ofcom recently introduced a draft advertising code under the Online Safety Act 2023 that, when implemented, will require major tech platforms to take robust action on online scams. Non-compliance could lead to fines of up to 10% of global revenue. We believe it is for big tech platforms to tackle those issues and, where they are failing, we will not shy away from taking firm action.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There is no place for hatred and violence of any kind in our society, whether on our streets or online. Our action includes investing in stronger protective security for faith communities, using the recommendations of the Bell review to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and delivering our social cohesion plan. For the first time, this Government have chaired a National Security Council on tackling antisemitism, to demonstrate our commitment to rooting out that evil. We will always be happy to work with Governments across the UK, including in Scotland, to share best practice, because we all have a role to play in strengthening our society.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Louise Haigh
Cuts made over the previous decade severely impacted the most deprived communities, and we inherited an outdated, unfair funding system that no longer reflected where pressures are greatest. The final settlement for Richmond council makes available more than £223 million, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss how we take this matter forward.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I begin by wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday—I am sure there is nowhere he would rather be celebrating.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that under the Conservatives, his constituents were let down by unfunded spending commitments that were never deliverable. We have reset the programme and are investing in our NHS, delivering more appointments and lowering wait times—his local elective waiting list is down by almost 27,000. We are working closely with trusts to accelerate progress wherever possible, and a Health Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss his innovative financing proposals.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise those critical issues and I absolutely understand the concerns over the services at St Helier. I know that the Minister for Secondary Care discussed these issues with MPs earlier this week. We have allocated £5 million to fund critical repairs at the hospital. We are keen that as many women’s health services as possible remain there while the essential work is carried out. The trust is committed to taking a decision on plans for the maternity and women’s unit in December. I know that the Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss next steps and how we will address these really important issues.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Today I met Braelyn Hollensbe, along with her mum. At 16, she was given just three months to live because of a brain tumour. Braelyn travelled to the UK for cutting-edge treatment. She is now 19, with scans showing no evidence of disease, and she is in the Gallery with her family today, thanks to our NHS. The drug DCVax-L is manufactured here in the UK. It is the first treatment in decades that has been shown to extend survival in recurrent glioblastoma patients, yet it is available to only a tiny number of patients on a compassionate use basis. Will the First Secretary join me in welcoming Braelyn, congratulate the NHS on playing a role in helping to develop this treatment, and agree that we should help to get it into widespread use to save more lives?
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this incredibly important point, and of course I welcome Braelyn and her family today. I will ensure that the Health Secretary looks at this issue urgently. I know that the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in it and will want to ensure that action is taken as soon as possible.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the First Secretary confirm that it is still Labour Government policy that employers are not working people?
Louise Haigh
I answered that question earlier in the session. Rather than take the Whip’s question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm why the Conservatives voted last night against every measure in the Budget that will help his constituents.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
In my constituency, the coastal towns of Largs and Saltcoats were badly flooded by Storm Boelo, with much damage caused to local businesses, as well as damage to constituents’ houses and gardens. Does the First Secretary agree with me that to avoid that happening again, there has to be joined-up working with the Scottish Government and all relevant authorities and agencies to ensure that our vulnerable coastal towns and communities have coastal defence preparedness plans in place?
Louise Haigh
I know that this is an issue my hon. Friend has been raising, and I met her yesterday to discuss this very issue. Flooding is devolved to the Scottish Government, but we have set up a floods resilience taskforce to ensure that we can work across borders, share best practice and address exactly the issues she raises.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On Saturday night, five teenagers in my constituency were stabbed while at a party. I would like to offer my thanks to the emergency services for their prompt response, and I extend my best wishes to the families, the victims and their friends. What reassurance can the First Secretary give my constituents that the Government are taking the issue of violent crime seriously and treating it as a public health emergency?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue, and to do so in the way that she has. I know that Members from across the House will send their thoughts and best wishes to the victims, to their families who will be incredibly worried about them and to the community at this time. We urge anybody with information to bring it forward to the police, so that any perpetrators can be brought to justice, and we remain committed to halving knife crime over the next decade. I will ensure that a Minister meets her to discuss the particular issues she raises about this crime and how we should address these issues going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to for ask your advice about the First Secretary of State having potentially inadvertently misled the House on two occasions during Question Time. She said that the Conservatives voted against every change in the Budget. That is not true—we voted against six specific measures. She also said quite specifically that the Conservatives voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. We did not—we voted against increasing council tax by opposing resolution 86—
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, please do me the courtesy of sitting down. Look, we cannot continue the debate. I am not responsible for the answers. What you have done, Mr Stafford, is to correct the record by putting down what you believe to be the facts. I do not want to continue a debate at this time.
Bills Presented
Energy Independence
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Dame Angela Eagle, Secretary Chris Bryant, Secretary Mr Douglas Alexander, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Michael Shanks and Martin McCluskey, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the energy sector; about energy schemes; about heat networks; about the Independent System Operator and Planner; about the North Sea Transition Authority and activities relating to petroleum; about the Mining Remediation Authority and coal-mining operations; about hydrogen power; about employment rights for offshore workers; about the energy efficiency of properties in the private rented sector; about radioactive waste; about fees relating to the assessment and certification of fuels and fireplaces; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 176) with explanatory notes (Bill 176-EN).
Visitor Levy (England)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Louise Haigh, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Jim McMahon and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the imposition, by strategic authorities, of a new local tax in respect of stays in residential accommodation.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 177) with explanatory notes (Bill 177-EN).
Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a Code of Practice to be followed by retailers of fashion clothing, footwear and accessories in their relationships with their suppliers; to set up an Adjudicator with the role of enforcing that Code of Practice and encouraging compliance with it; and for connected purposes.
The UK fashion and textile sector contributes £62 billion to our economy and supports 1.3 million jobs. From historic textile mills in Yorkshire and Lancashire to garment manufacturing in Leicester, London and the west midlands, domestic production provides skilled regional employment and industrial capability.
The majority of fashion retailers want to trade ethically, and certainly the public encourage them to do that, supporting fair wages and good conditions. However, the global garment market is heavily buyer-driven. Where a minority of companies engage in abusive practices, responsible businesses risk being undercut and small suppliers lack bargaining leverage. Without a level playing field, bad practice distorts fair competition and stops small businesses operating successfully.
We saw how completely the garment market can fail during the covid-19 pandemic. When retail stores closed in 2020, major brands selling in the UK cancelled billions of pounds-worth of confirmed orders overnight, withheld payments for garments already stitched and demanded steep discounts on shipped goods. That crisis laid bare the fundamental flaw in global garment supply chains: when unexpected costs hit, buyers dump commercial risks on to factory owners and workers, with zero accountability.
These practices have been documented for decades by organisations including the International Labour Organisation, Human Rights Watch, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and the Vietnam labour institute, and recent research from the Universities of Aberdeen, Nottingham and Leicester, the Tata Institute and Transform Trade shows that unfair buying habits remain routine commercial tactics across the UK, Bangladesh and India. These unfair practices, which include cancelled orders, forced price cuts, refusal to pay for goods in production and delayed invoices, caused job losses, poverty wages and unsafe working conditions for the workforce, the majority of whom are women.
In historic hubs such as Leicester, heavy buyer pressure has driven the number of clothing businesses down from 1,500 in 2017 to roughly 95 today. Behind those figures are real factory owners facing impossible terms. One UK manufacturer produced 1,000 garment samples over a single season, costing hundreds of pounds each, only for the buyer to order just 140 styles. Another suffered a sudden cancellation of 80,000 finished garments and 100,000 metres of fabric that was already paid for. Small UK factories pay up to £4,000 a year for mandatory compliance audits, only for 42% to receive zero orders after passing them.
Overseas suppliers face the exact same tactics. In India, when a factory had an order almost complete, an auditor flagged slightly insufficient lighting in one corner of the workshop, which the buying agent seized on to force down the contract price. Elsewhere, UK retailers have held shipments at destination ports to force steep retroactive discounts, ignoring daily emails from factory managers asking how to pay their staff. Buyers can drop orders at short notice or force price cuts, making low-paid workers absorb the blow through reduced hours, unpaid overtime or lay-offs.
Women make up 61% of the core garment workforce in the UK and 60% in Bangladesh. Crucially, international suppliers fall outside the jurisdiction of UK labour enforcement bodies, and relationships are governed by unilateral buyer manuals filled with automatic fines. Of 1,000 factories surveyed in Bangladesh, not one took legal action against a buyer; some 80% feared blacklisting. Few factory owners, whether in Leicester, India or Bangladesh, can afford to sue multimillion-pound brands.
This Labour Government have taken positive steps to raise standards across our economy. The Government’s review into responsible business conduct demonstrates a clear commitment to supply chain integrity. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will strengthen domestic labour enforcement, and the 60-day payment cap in the Commercial Payments Bill is a major step forward for business cash flow. We should celebrate those achievements, but to complete the picture and protect ethical businesses, we must go further where standards fall lower. Enforcing labour laws against factory owners cannot address financial pressures when a retailer forces a supplier to sell below production cost. Transparency reporting does not stop daily commercial abuses such as forced discounts or sudden cancellations. Capping payment terms at 60 days helps UK payment schedules, but it does not reach international supply chains or protect against cancelled contracts. Advising small suppliers to pursue litigation fails to recognise commercial reality, as no small business can afford to sue the buyer that it depends on for survival.
We need to regulate buyer behaviour directly through a statutory garment trading adjudicator across the UK market, bringing domestic and foreign retailers selling in the UK into scope. That creates fair competition, enabling small businesses to compete successfully. We already have a proven model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator; code breaches fell from 79% in 2014 to 33% in 2024, while food retailers remained profitable and paid food suppliers up to three months faster than clothing retailers pay garment suppliers. Furthermore, the European Union is proposing similar unfair trading practice regulations for the textile sector.
Ahead of establishing the adjudicator, a mandatory supply chain code of practice is needed to define clear rules of fair dealing. First, therefore, the garment trading adjudicator would enforce a mandatory supply chain code of practice, including a legally binding principle of fair dealing, giving suppliers certainty over orders, fair payment timelines and protection from sudden contract changes. Secondly, it would protect suppliers by allowing factory owners, trade unions and third parties to submit evidence through confidential and anonymous reporting channels, supported by a multilingual system so that global suppliers can report in their own languages.
Thirdly, the adjudicator would be empowered to initiate proactive market investigations based on intelligence without requiring an individual, formal public complaint that could expose a single supplier to commercial retaliation. Fourthly, it would have the power to impose financial penalties on abusive retailers who breach the code and require retailers to reimburse suppliers for what they are owed. Finally, the regulator would be funded entirely through a statutory levy on large fashion retailers, placing zero cost on the British taxpayer.
This proposal has been made by the Environmental Audit Committee in the past and has cross-party parliamentary support. By supporting this Bill, we can build on this Government’s impressive work—from the creation of the Fair Work Agency to the new Office for Responsible Business Conduct—and complete the regulatory picture. Establishing a garment trading adjudicator would create a level playing field, in which responsible businesses were protected from unfair competition, small suppliers could invest with confidence, and British retail could stand tall as a global benchmark for ethical trading. I urge the House to support this Bill and grant leave for it to be brought in.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Twist, Cat Smith, Ms Stella Creasy, David Mundell, Martin Rhodes, Rachael Maskell, Jeff Smith, Maya Ellis, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Mary Glindon, Wera Hobhouse and Navendu Mishra present the Bill.
Liz Twist accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 172).
Sporting Events Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
13:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—
“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—
(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(c) engage in surge pricing.
(2) In this section—
“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and
“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”
This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.
New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—
“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—
(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or
(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).
(3) In this section—
“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and
“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”
This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.
New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—
“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—
(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;
(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;
(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;
(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—
(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;
(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;
(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;
(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and
(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.
New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the sports rights provisions.”
Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—
(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”
Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —
“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—
(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.
Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
“the appropriate national legislature” means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
“passenger railway services” means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;
“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.
Industrial action local authority offences
2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;
“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;
“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).
Accessible facilities
3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.
(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.
Financial Assistance
4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
Interpretation
5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”
This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”
Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—
“Schedule 4A
SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS
1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.
(2) A sporting event betting licence must—
(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and
(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.
(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.
(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.
2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.
(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—
(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;
(b) damages.”
Anna Sabine
As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.
On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.
There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.
All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:
“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”
That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is really good that the scope of this Bill was extended to include more major events, not just one big-ticket item. However, it now creates a two-tier ticketing system; it places restrictions on the sale of tickets to only a few sporting events, while music events and other cultural events are waiting for a solution that has been promised but not come. Does the hon. Lady agree that that puts in stark perspective the urgent need for the ticket touting Bill to come forward as quickly as possible?
Anna Sabine
It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.
Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are seeing a first in this House—a debate in which the Member for Harlow is called first. I welcome it. You are in a good mood, Mr Speaker, because it is Lancashire Day today.
Chris Vince
Well, as a sort of adopted Yorkshireman, I look forward to celebrating it with you.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a keen football supporter, and although the fortunes of both Harlow Town and Leeds United have been somewhat inconsistent in recent years—I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is sitting opposite me, is looking forward to a positive Farke-led revolution—I feel an immense sense of pride when the country hosts sporting events. I think not only of the 2012 Olympics; I am old enough to remember Euro ’96, when football came home, but perhaps not in all the ways we hoped it would.
I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for her commitment and dedication to sport in this country. Whether it is grassroots football teams such as the league-winning Roydon FC or our Ballon d’Or winning England captain Harry Kane—
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Or Wigan Warriors!
Chris Vince
I know that sport, and indeed the fantastic rugby league players who I know, Mr Speaker, you regularly cheer on—
Chris Vince
Maybe between us, we can change that. [Interruption.] I feel like I have started an argument between Mr Speaker and the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State is not going to win, so I will move on quickly.
Sport has the opportunity not only to improve people’s lives, but to change people’s lives. I have formed friendships by standing at Harlow Town football club week in, week out, and I am forever grateful for having had that opportunity. This Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading host of major sporting events by establishing a legal framework that makes it easier to host international competitions, and strengthen our advantage when bidding for future tournaments.
I welcome some of the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats in their amendments, but I believe that the Bill in its current form already addresses unauthorised ticket touting. We need to see the back of that menace. We want real sports fans to have the opportunity to go to these sporting events.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Having served as the Sports Minister overseeing the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I know at first hand the incredible opportunities and challenges that come with hosting major international sporting events. For that reason I broadly welcome the Bill and the framework it seeks to establish. The case for hosting major sporting events is clear: they generate significant economic activity, support jobs, inspire participation in sport and leave lasting legacies in communities across the country.
Sport contributes more than £53 billion annually to the UK economy. Major events play an important role in supporting growth across sectors such as tourism and hospitality. The Birmingham Commonwealth games alone generated an additional £1.2 billion in economic value added, as well as leaving a legacy of improved or new facilities in and around Birmingham. As we look ahead to Euro 2028, and as we pursue our ambition to host the 2035 women’s world cup—and a future Olympic games—it is vital that we have a modern and effective legislative framework in place. Historically, Parliament has had to legislate separately for each major event, and that approach is neither efficient nor sustainable.
The Bill’s strength is that it creates a standing framework through which future events can be delivered more effectively, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while ensuring the UK remains an attractive place, if not the best in the world, to host major sporting competitions. For those reasons, I support the broad aims of the Bill.
Although the Government have already accepted some amendments, including incorporating a limited number of recurring annual events, the Opposition Front Bench have tabled a few further amendments and enhancements that I would like the Government to consider supporting. First, the success of a major sporting event depends not only on athletes and organisers but on the transport networks and public services that allow spectators, volunteers and competitors to participate. When that infrastructure is disrupted by industrial action, as we have seen, local businesses lose trade, visitors face uncertainty and the reputation of the host nation can suffer. Many will remember the strikes planned to coincide with the opening of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, which were a deliberate attempt to disrupt a major national event, while the country was recovering from the pandemic, with the intent of causing maximum disruption. Furthermore, the Government had to dip into contingencies—taxpayer’s money—to the tune of £4 million to provide alternative transport options for sporting fans. Any opportunity to limit such damage would be welcome.
Secondly, a major sporting event should not only showcase excellence on the field of play but command the confidence of athletes, spectators and governing bodies alike. For many people, maintaining fairness in women’s sporting competition and preserving appropriate single-sex spaces form an important part of that confidence. The Opposition’s amendments would incorporate single-sex protections into the sporting events framework, ensuring that where it is applied, major sporting events and associated activities provide single-sex competitions and facilities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The proposals also provide sensible exemptions for self-contained facilities, including those designed for disabled people, recognising that accessibility, dignity and practicality must sit alongside privacy and fairness.
There are also several proposals and amendments relating to ticketing and ticket touting, in particular the secondary ticket market. We need to be careful in this area. There is cross-party support for ensuring that we do not have rip-off ticketing in sporting and many other events. We also need to ensure a valid, perfectly legitimate secondary ticket market can thrive, because that can be good for consumers, and competition can help keep prices low. There have been circumstances where a monopoly has been created in sporting events. That may have been well intended, but it has led to organisers charging considerable amounts in, for example, fees. We saw that during the FIFA world cup, where the official resale platform charged a 15% fee to buyers and sellers. That demonstrates how easily costs can be passed on to supporters when limited competition and no alternative marketplace is available. I therefore ask the Government to consider what further evidence may be required when looking at this challenging marketplace.
I stress again that I support the overall purpose of the Bill and the framework it establishes, but if we are serious about maximising the benefits of hosting major sporting events, we should also be prepared to strengthen the legislation where necessary. The amendments would do exactly that, so I hope the Minister will consider them carefully.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
I welcome this Bill, because I know from experience how important it is. Before becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the London 2012 Olympic games, the Euro 2020 football championships and the 2022 FIFA world cup. I have seen at first hand what it takes to make a major sporting event a success and the benefits it can have for the wider community. These events have taught me that while venues, organisation and promotion are all important, the most crucial factor is support from Government and local authorities. Unfortunately, that support is not consistent across the country. While some areas have the relationships, expertise and capacity to help sporting events thrive, others start from scratch each and every time. That is why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has called for a national strategy for major events, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish one.
The Committee has also called for responsibility for major events to be moved from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Business and Trade. That move would highlight the role of events in driving investment, tourism and growth. The importance of major sporting events is not just their financial contribution, but their ability to create and celebrate community. We also see that in grassroots events, such as Rochford Hundred’s Remembrance Day fixture, which recently brought the community together in an extraordinary way. That event was not a global spectacle, but it showed the true power of sport in building community. I commend the club’s president, Ray Stephenson, and its chairman, Steve Maguire, who made that match happen.
I finish by encouraging colleagues to think back to the successful sporting events of the past few decades, and specifically their ability to make the whole country feel united. In these times, we all know how important it is to stay united. This Bill strengthens our ability to deliver those moments and ensures that the benefits reach every community in the country.
Nigel Huddleston
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.
The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.
Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.
The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.
In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 8 and 6, on industrial action and single sex protections respectively. The point I wish to raise goes further than this specific Bill, because I think it is a perfect case study of the purpose of the Chamber. We have a Bill that, as the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) articulated, has broad support across the House and is not a controversial Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House love sport and want our country to attract major sporting events to our shores, and they see sport as a force for good in unifying communities—I very much agreed with his sentiments on that point.
The Opposition have tabled two modest, reasonable and sensible amendments, one of which would simply build on the existing law and provide that if we are to use taxpayers’ money on events in the UK, they should surely comply with UK law. That is the very essence of a modest amendment. We have a consensual Bill, and the amendment simply restates the existing law and how it would apply to an international competition held in this country.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.
As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.
The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.
Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.
Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.
We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.
Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.
I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.
At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.
What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.
Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.
In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.
Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?
Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.
Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:
“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”
Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.
What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.
The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same.
I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.
This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today’s debate has broadly shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events; this Bill will make sure that we continue to attract the world’s biggest sporting moments, and to welcome the social and economic benefits they bring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate, as I know I am meant to be. Running any sporting event, be it the Commonwealth games or a football tournament, is almost impossible for one city to do on its own because of the financial cost, but it may be possible for a number of UK cities to hold it together. Will the Government commit to ensuring that, if we hold a showpiece football tournament or the Commonwealth games, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England can all be part of it?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Indeed, we are working together on Euro 2028, which is the first tournament to which this Bill will apply.
This is a framework Bill that covers ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. Proportionality is now embedded in these powers—I gave that commitment on Second Reading—so that everyone, particularly small and micro-sized businesses, can benefit when the world comes to visit us. After valuable discussions in this House and the other place, we are pleased that the Bill will also extend to our world-class recurrent events, so that those internationally acclaimed events can apply for and benefit from the powers in this Bill.
I am grateful for the contributions from across the House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the Minister for appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during our inquiry on major events earlier in the year. We asked her what more she could do to demonstrate that the Government were gripping this issue, so the extension of the Bill to more events other than one-offs is really good. As I mentioned, however, we risk creating a two-tier ticketing system, because these rules relate to sporting events, but music and other cultural events are left waiting for a solution—a solution that was promised in the manifesto, but has not yet come. Can she give any update on when we might expect the ticket touting Bill that will set out the restrictions on who can operate in the secondary market, and how that can be more legislatively fair?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Select Committee, and indeed the hon. Member, for their work. I really appreciated their work on major events, and I listened to most of the evidence that her Committee took. We are absolutely committed to getting that Bill on the statute book, and I will come on to that in a moment.
I am grateful to the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), for all his work, and for his speech. I believe he asked why transport is not included for recurrent events. We have had a conversation about this with stakeholders, and we are confident that recurrent events already have robust transport provisions in place. This issue was raised in detail in Committee, and I have written to the relevant Transport Minister about those concerns.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their support. Their speeches highlighted that major events contribute to communities across our country. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) asked about small businesses. We draw the zone much more tightly for events such as Euro 2028 than for recurrent events, but I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about this.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am going to have to take a moment—
Chris Vince
Does the Minister agree with me that it is hugely important to celebrate all levels of sport, from grassroots football clubs such as Roydon FC to the mighty Harlow Town and, of course, Leeds United?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point, and I am grateful to the House for its understanding.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) deal with ticketing. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are committed to tackling industrial-scale touting, but this Bill is not the place to do so. Our upcoming ticket tout ban Bill will do that.
Jim Shannon
We are very appreciative of all the work the Minister does in the Department, and we very much respect her enthusiasm and energy. We understand that she will be bringing forward legislative change that we wish to see, and we welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.
We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has done a fantastic job.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.
Third Reading
King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Lisa Nandy
The UK has a proud record of hosting the world’s greatest sporting events, including in Glasgow and Birmingham this summer, and who can forget the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games in London, delivered by the late and great Tessa Jowell, who is still much missed by all of us in the House? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who oversaw an extraordinarily successful Commonwealth games in Birmingham that really showed what this country is capable of.
In a world where too many things divide us, sport has the remarkable capacity to unite—to bring communities together and show the best of our country to the world. Perhaps its greatest power is what it can do for the next generation. I was privileged to be at the Red Roses’ historic win at the 2025 women’s rugby world cup and to see Twickenham packed to the rafters cheering them on. What made me prouder still was seeing what followed—thousands of girls taking their first steps into rugby, signing up to their local clubs and discovering what they were capable of. This is what we should always strive for.
We have some extraordinary opportunities ahead of us. When the two Tour de France grand départs come to Great Britain next summer, they will create the most accessible major sporting event our country has ever hosted. Millions of people will have the chance to get up close to some of the greatest competitors in the world, and hopefully it will inspire a new generation into cycling.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 will give us a summer of extraordinary football. We are determined that its legacy will be about much more than what happens in the stadiums across the whole of the United Kingdom. That must, of course, include great benefits for Northern Ireland.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.
Lisa Nandy
I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.
Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.
The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.
I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.
In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.
I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.
There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.
I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.
I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.
Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rebecca Paul
The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.
In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?
I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.
For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.
Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.
With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 139 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Railways Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 4 November 2026.
The Railways Bill places passengers back at the heart of our railway. By establishing Great British Railways it provides a framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, to instil confidence in our railways and to attract more people to use them. Great British Railways will also ensure that we harness the economic and environmental opportunities of rail freight, underpinned by two statutory duties related to freight. Great British Railways will be tasked with maximising freight growth in a sustainable way, providing confidence to freight customers and the wider sector that the industry is being prioritised.
Great British Railways will also ensure that the needs of communities up and down the country are considered at every turn. A bespoke partnerships framework will require Great British Railways to work hand in hand with local authorities to ensure that local communities receive the services they need.
As hon. Members will be aware, this legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny in the other place. It is important that that work continues and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The motion simply ensures that Parliament has sufficient time available to scrutinise the Bill. With that in mind, if hon. Members wish to raise any specific concerns, I invite them to do so in writing to my Department, where I am sure my colleague the Rail Minister will be more than happy to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Goodness, I thought we had a Rail Minister in front of us. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Labour Government brought a Bill to this House incomplete, late, like a student late with an essay, handing in half-baked work well after the deadline, hoping nobody would notice, with half the answers missing—that is why we are back here. Presumably the Department is taking inspiration from the Education Secretary. They have run out of time, missed the deadline, and now they are back for more. They have had a year, but what on earth have they been doing?
We are here because the Labour Government have once again shown whose side they are on: not on the side of working people—who they cannot even define—but on the side of their union paymasters, on whose coffers they depend. Who are the unions to Labour? An army of sugar daddies they cannot do without, picking up the tab for Labour MPs, and when the unions call, Labour cannot say no. This lot will ride roughshod over our railways just to fulfil their weird ideological obsessions and, more importantly, those of their union backers.
How do we know that? We look at their Bill. Whose interests does it support? Is it the passengers, whose fares are set to rise next year, thanks to the Chancellor sneaking it through on the last page of the Budget? Is it rail freight, which faces being squeezed off the tracks, slice by slice, under the weight of more costs and less access to tracks? Is it the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for this barefaced indulgence in ideology? No, it is Labour’s union bosses pursuing an ideology that has been abandoned by Japan and by every railway in Europe but is still there in the Labour party in the UK.
There used to be an order to how this worked, which was uniquely British. The unions rocked up at No. 10, and after a genteel chat over some Chablis—they might have pretended it was beer, sandwiches and pork pies, but there was always white wine and smoked salmon—they left with giant pay rises. Labour could not negotiate to save their lives—forget an actual meeting or even the pretence of a negotiation. That is all that has to happen these days; it is like ordering a takeaway the old-school way. It’s “Dial a rise”—the unions pick up the phone and demand what they want, as if they were ordering a curry for tea.
The Bill has been delayed because the Government’s union pals were worried. I know worrying about saving taxpayers’ money is an alien suggestion to Labour: whenever it gets a new Prime Minister, it seems contractually obliged to go back to the unions and chuck in a whopper of a pay rise so that they do not ruffle feathers in the latest leadership election. That is what the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) provided—back in those heady days when she was the Transport Secretary, before she had to resign due to forgetting she had admitted to being convicted of fraud—and that is what this Prime Minister has done as well.
Let us be clear: these delays have caused huge issues for taxpayers already on the hook for God knows how much, and huge issues for investors in our railways. This is no way to govern, it is no way to legislate and it is no way to respect this House. But maybe, just maybe, the Government will use the thinking time they will get if this motion passes to dwell on how to protect our open-access services, such as the Hull Trains direct service from Selby to London, rather than screwing them over with their “GBR or else” mobster-style manoeuvring. It is not good enough.
It is not good enough for passengers, whom the Secretary of State seems to expect to be out on the streets clapping and banging pots and pans in support every time the Government change a seat from one ironing board to another at the taxpayers’ expense, every time they paint a train red, white and blue—or Burnham yellow in Manchester—and every time they put up a clock. On this side of the House, we see a Bill that is most certainly not good enough for the taxpayers who must fork out for all this grandstanding while the service gets more expensive. That is what this Bill promises. Yes, it delivers certainty, the certainty of a service that will be worse: more trains delayed, more cancellations, more delays and more short-form trains. We see that already with the services being taken under state control. On this side of the House, we will not be voting to carry that forward. Rather than backing the Government’s union paymasters, we will be backing taxpayers and passengers instead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Marvellous! Have we got the Liberal Democrat spokesperson? Marvellous! Olly Glover, come on!
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Yes, I am very much here, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Goodness me! How am I to follow that? I wonder how many other people have managed to get “sugar daddies” into Hansard. Congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State on that.
Nothing has changed with this legislation, as of yet, so our grave concerns remain. Of course, we hope that the deliberations of our noble Lords will lead to some improvements, and we look forward to seeing those at a later date. My only question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long to deliver this Bill? He is quite right to say that the opportunity for scrutiny is important, and that is welcome, but by my analysis, there have been some unexplained gaps, including one and a half months between Second Reading and Committee, and a four-month gap between the Committee concluding and Report. There was also a two-month gap in the Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I very much hope that the Secretary of State did not procure HS2 or East West Rail to project-manage this Bill, but perhaps the Minister will tell us he is considering introducing some form of parliamentary delay-repay scheme.
Simon Lightwood
What a truly bizarre performance by the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that it makes more sense with subtitles. He should not give up his day job, because he would make an absolutely lousy comedian.
The Railways Bill puts passengers back at the heart of our railway by establishing Great British Railways, and provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, and to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them.
Question put.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred division will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for two minutes. [Interruption.] We see a Secretary of State running out.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 11 November 2026.
The UK is subject to daily and unrelenting cyber-attacks, as cyber-criminals and state-linked actors blackmail businesses, steal data and threaten our very way of life. As our lives become increasingly digital, the threat comes not only from hostile actors, but from weaknesses in the resilience of our systems. We must defend against both and focus our attention where it matters most.
Although all businesses should secure themselves against cyber-attack using the National Cyber Security Centre’s free toolkits, it is right that we do not over-regulate every business. That is why the Bill is targeted at our most essential and critical services, relating to drinking water, health, transport, energy and the digital services that keep our economy running. If these services were disrupted, we would have nowhere else to turn. The Bill safeguards those services and, in turn, protects the individuals and businesses that rely on them. That is the priority of this Government.
We will not hesitate to take action when hostile actors seek to do us harm. The Bill delivers a step change in national security and equips the Government with the powers to act decisively on threat intelligence. This Government have gone further still; we have tabled amendments to introduce a new vendor risk management framework, which will assist businesses in reviewing their supply chains and working with the Government to mitigate those risks, and it will, if necessary, enable Government to step in and instruct organisations to take action.
This week, the Bill re-entered the House after completing Third Reading in the other place on Monday 2 November. I pay tribute to the Minister, the noble Baroness Lloyd, as well as Members of this House and the other place for engaging so constructively throughout the Bill’s passage. In many instances, the contributions have refined the Bill and made it more robust. I know that hon. Members will continue this constructive dialogue in their consideration of Lords amendments, and will pass a Bill that is fit to deal with the cyber-threats that we face now and in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats absolutely support this motion, but it is my democratic duty to highlight some things that I would love the Government to consider as we make this extension.
Let us look locally, nationally and internationally. In July, Hertfordshire county council raised its cyber-security risk to the maximum score on its register, 25 out of 25. That is exactly the kind of risk that this Bill should manage, yet the Bill excludes local authorities, even though they hold social care records on some of the most vulnerable people. Less than a fortnight ago, 32 Government services went offline while Departments patched critical flaws in widely used web software. That shows just how vulnerable the heart of our nation’s digital infrastructure and security is. On Sunday night, hackers attacked dozens of supermarket refrigerators and freezers in seven European countries, raising their temperatures to 50°C and spoiling millions of euros-worth of produce. That is the food we all rely on every single day, and the National Cyber Security Centre has warned:
“The UK’s cyber resilience is not yet where it should be.”
Our framework must not fall behind those of our closest neighbours. We should deepen co-operation with European Union agencies and member states. In a digital world, isolation only increases risk.
Those examples lay bare the crucial importance of the Bill and the devastating cost to businesses, consumers and our national security if we fail to get it right. The Bill cannot simply react to yesterday’s threats; we must ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the future, which means addressing over-reliance on high-risk foreign technology, and tackling the rapidly escalating threat of cyber-attacks powered by artificial intelligence, and on the internet of things, which is embedded in so much of what we use.
Digital sovereignty underpins everything else. We can no longer ignore the risks of over-reliance on American and Chinese technology, or rely on hostile, unpredictable states for our critical infrastructure. More than half of central Government organisations now run most of their systems on the cloud, and that all sits with just two companies, both American. The Government are the UK’s largest buyer of technology, but they almost never buy British. Since 2023, Palantir has won more than £420 million in public contracts across the national health service, the Met, the financial regulator, a city council and the Ministry of Defence. The latter’s £240 million contract was awarded without competition. Palantir is also an approved supplier on six public sector buying frameworks with a combined value of more than £9.7 billion—a route into Whitehall, the NHS, the police and our local councils.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a travesty that Palantir is not on the strategic suppliers list maintained by the Cabinet Office?
Victoria Collins
I thank my hon. Friend for that. There is so much that highlights that this is the wrong approach from our Government, and that we need to look not only at our suppliers, but at the importance of backing British technology. We believe that a digital sovereign strategy would change things. We need to back British innovation, reduce our dependencies and make our critical systems more secure. We need to look at each level of the tech stack and have a strategy that is right for the UK. I put that proposal to this House in June through new clause 13, which received cross-party support, but the Government and the Conservatives voted it down.
Sovereignty is not about doing this alone; it is about working globally while backing British. It is about becoming and staying world leaders in technology. It is about securing high-quality digital infrastructure that embeds us in global supply chains and makes the most of our incredible talent and skills. That would give us international leverage, not isolation. The Government say that sovereignty is covered by Departments across Whitehall, and last week’s Budget put another £60 million in the sovereign AI fund, but a venture fund and a patchwork of departmental reports are not a strategy.
The new powers on high-risk vendors in clause 44 allow the Government to react once a risky supplier is already in our system, but a strategy needs to be proactive. It needs to build British capability so that we never get to that point. Even industry is calling for a strategy, so I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments on digital sovereignty.
Secondly, amendment 107, which passed in the Lords—a Cross-Bench amendment that Liberal Democrat peers supported—requires a review within a year of Royal Assent, and every year after that, of whether the regime is working, which sectors it covers, the supply chains, the regulators and the AI Security Institute. Given the fast pace of change in cyber-security, we urge the Government to support the amendment and to look at expanding the scope to local government, which holds our electoral rolls and our social records, and to retail, because a country that cannot feed itself is not resilient. We welcome the Government’s commitment in the other place to reviewing whether all critical national infrastructure sectors should be covered by this legislation and the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018.
This week’s NCSC review warns that AI-powered malware is highly likely to be used in ransomware attacks on our critical infrastructure by 2028, yet there is still no clarity on who oversees AI in our cyber-defences: a single regulator, the AI Security Institute, or another body that is exactly right for the task. Our constituents and businesses need that clarity, because where there is trust in the regulatory environment, there is investment. People need to trust the technology; that is both pro-business and pro-society.
The Government need a plan for who does what, and they need it sooner rather than later. As Europe calls for a leaders’ summit on AI, I call again on the Government to convene a global AI summit, and to look towards an international AI safety agency, headquartered in the UK and modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a global treaty on pausing the development of super-intelligent AI.
Finally, none of this works unless those who are expected to deliver it can work. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.8% of UK businesses and are often the most vulnerable link in the cyber-supply chains. This week’s discount on Cyber Essentials certification is welcome—the Liberal Democrats called for that—but it is time-limited; it ends in March, and the certificate must be renewed every year. Even the NCSC calls it only a starting point. SMEs need real support from a cyber-security support service when they are hit, to give them clear guidance.
On Second Reading, I compared this Bill to a house with stronger fences and a better alarm, but with its back door left wide open. The past few days alone have shown us why closing that door matters. I urge the Government to consider our amendments, for the communities and councils who rely on critical infrastructure, for the businesses integrated into every supply chain, and for every family who expect the services that they rely on to be there when they need them. We support the carry-over motion.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It a pleasure to follow the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who raised a number of important points, particularly about Palantir operating in the national health service. I support this carry-over motion, which will allow Parliament to complete its work on legislation that is vital to our national security, our civil preparedness and our economic resilience. Having completed its Lords stages earlier this week, the Bill is now within reach of the statute book, and the need for its protections is increasingly urgent. Just yesterday, the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre warned us:
“The cyber threat has increased faster than our defensive capabilities”.
The threats are increasingly obvious. As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned, this week, nine countries have been attacked; supermarket fridges were turned up to 50°C, ruining millions of pounds-worth of food. That comes on the back of attacks against French supermarkets only three weeks ago. The National Cyber Security Centre’s review describes Russian intelligence exploiting routers to target critical infrastructure, widespread disruption caused by Iranian proxies and the ever-expanding reach of Chinese cyber-espionage.
These operations form a fast-evolving hybrid threat to our economy and the infrastructure on which our essential services depends. For those of us in the west midlands, last year’s attack on Jaguar Land Rover brought these threats right to our doorstep. Production lines ground to a halt, orders were disrupted and suppliers placed under crushing financial pressure. The cost of the attacks was estimated at £1.9 billion and while the Government responded quickly, providing a £1.5 billion loan to help sustain JLR and its supply chain, the best response and the best protection we can give businesses is prevention.
JLR’s ordeal underscores the need for the Bill and the changes it makes to the 2018 framework, requiring IT service providers, data centres and other critical bodies to meet rigorous cyber-security standards, strengthening incident reporting and giving the Government the power to respond to national security threats. For Halesowen and the west midlands, these changes would boost the resilience of businesses, keeping them trading and production lines moving, and data centres and livelihoods secured, so I support the motion so that we can complete this legislation promptly and put its protections into practice as soon as possible.
Ian Murray
I welcome the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on this incredibly serious issue and look forward to her bringing them back when we actually have the debate, beyond this carry-over motion. I hope she will support the carry-over motion so she can make her speech again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned JLR and other high profile issues of a serious nature. That allows me to briefly give a big message to all businesses in the country that cyber-security is also their responsibility—it should be in every boardroom, at the top of every agenda, to ensure we are not having those incidents. As my hon. Friend, said prevention is better than cure. The National Cyber Security Centre has all the free tools available, so I encourage every single business—micro, small, medium and large—to use those tools to ensure they are as secure as they possibly can be. Of course, we cannot stop all cyber-attacks being successful, but we can minimise the risk as much as possible and make sure that it is everyone’s responsibility.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
During the evidence collection process, lots of experts from the cyber-security sector called for board accountability to be reintroduced into the Bill, as it is in similar legislation in the European Union. Will he give us his thoughts on why that has not been included?
Ian Murray
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned the same European Union regulations. We need to do what is in the best interests of businesses in the United Kingdom. The message is pretty clear that all businesses must have cyber-security at the top of their agenda—it should be in every boardroom and we keep encouraging them to do so.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you missed out on me making a very long speech, so you are very lucky. Will the Minister briefly touch on what liability there will be for frontier model providers, such as OpenAI, who breach their duties, for example I am thinking of the Hugging Face incident in July 2026?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend from Harlow—I am surprised he did not mention Harlow in his contribution, so I thought I had better put it on the record or otherwise he will be struck out—makes a good point. However, we can also see that AI provides a good solution to this problem. Because of the PHP incidents in the past few weeks, we have identified that there were holes in that particular system and then those holes were patched and plugged, so while AI is a big cyber-security problem, it is also a big part of the solution. This Bill is here to give us better cyber-security and better resilience across all our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
For many years, residents in Newton Flotman have lived with unsafe junctions on the A140. Five awkward junctions in a 500 yard stretch of the A140 are causing chaos and confusion, and they are a serious risk to safety. Over 500 residents who have signed this petition believe road improvements are urgently needed to protect motorists and pedestrians in Newton Flotman. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk county council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,
Declares that the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane are unsafe and pose a risk to motorist and pedestrian safety; and further declares that upgrades are needed to improve the safety of these junctions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk County Council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003247]
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Walsall and the United Kingdom to raise the issue of the proposed secondary school on Reedswood Park, an important community space and former golf course. The development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitat, while increasing the existing pressure on the surrounding infrastructure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety.
If a new secondary school is required—the data suggests it is not—alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd school site. There were 2,062 signatures to an online petition, and the petitioners are therefore calling on the Government
“to ensure that in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impact of development at Reedswood Park and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Reedswood Park is an important community green space and that 2,063 signatories to a separate online petition oppose plans to build on the park for a new secondary school; further declares that the proposed secondary school development would be located on part of the park formerly used as a golf course; further declares that the development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitats supporting local wildlife; further declares that the surrounding infrastructure is already under significant pressure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety; and further notes that, if a new secondary school is required, alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd School site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that, in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impacts of development at Reedswood Park, and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003256]
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Coventry South regarding Coventry city council’s contract with Palantir. More than 3,900 people have signed a related online petition. In September 2025, Coventry city council awarded Palantir a contract worth £500,000 to provide AI-related services in children’s services. The contract was renewed in February 2026 at a cost of £750,000, a 50% increase, bringing the total to £1.25 million.
There are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including providing surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli Government, which are committing genocide in Palestine, as well as the handling of sensitive personal data and the growing privatisation of our public services. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry city council to terminate its contract with Palantir, to consult residents and trade unions and to ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in our public services.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency Coventry South,
Declares that Coventry City Council has renewed a £750,000 contract with the US firm Palantir for children’s services; further declares that there are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including its provision of data surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli government, which is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the handling of sensitive personal data, and the increasing role of private technology companies in public services; and further declares that Coventry residents, council staff and recognised trade unions should have a meaningful say in decisions concerning the use of AI and data in local public services before a contract is agreed and renewed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry City Council to terminate its contract with Palantir; consult residents and recognised trade unions on future AI and data decisions; and ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in Coventry’s public services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003257]
Strategic Licensing Regulations: London
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate.
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament to have had a late night, to have spent time in Bar Italia as a young person, or to have enjoyed the wonderful culture of central London, whether at the Royal Albert Hall, the Theatre Royal, Haymarket or the Soho Theatre. The west end’s history and culture is synonymous with the openness, creativity and diversity that define modern London. However, I am the only Member of Parliament to represent the communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. Few places have contributed more to our cultural life, and few places demonstrate more clearly the importance of striking the right balance between supporting a thriving night time economy and making sure that residential communities can also thrive.
I represent some of the most vibrant, economically critical and culturally significant communities in the country, from the City of London to Pimlico, from Covent Garden to Marylebone and from Fitzrovia to Soho. These are the places that help power London’s economy and define our global reputation, and they are also places where people live, where people enjoy their own lives and where people bring up families. They enjoy their homes and the internationally renowned nightlife that exists alongside them. Many of them raise families there, they sleep there, and they expect to have a meaningful say over decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. That balance between a thriving city and a liveable city is at the heart of any licensing policy, and it is why these regulations matter.
Let me be clear at the outset of this debate: I support devolution; I support economic growth; and I support thriving communities. And I support the principle that genuinely strategic issues may require a strategic voice. I also recognise that the Government’s final regulations that they published a few weeks ago are narrower and more objective than many feared they might be. The Government have rightly moved away from the broader and more subjective approach originally proposed. Concepts such as economic importance, reputational importance and strategic geography have not been adopted. Instead, the regulations rely on statutory criteria based on venue size, operating hours and licensing classifications.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate this evening—this afternoon, even! Does she welcome the fact that the Mayor of London will still need to take into account the four strategic licensing objectives in coming to any decision: protecting public safety; protecting children and young people; preventing public nuisance; and preventing crime? Does she also note that there is a facility for people to then appeal the Mayor of London’s decision if at that point they do not agree with it?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a powerful point about the overriding significance of the four licensing objectives. Public safety and preventing crime are critical objectives, and they mean an awful lot to my constituents.
These criteria provide greater certainty for residents, businesses and local authorities alike. However, Parliament should still ask whether the thresholds now adopted reflect the expectations created during the consideration of the parent legislation. During the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, Ministers repeatedly described these powers as exceptional, carefully constrained and a measure of last resort. The House of Lords approved the principle before seeing the detailed definition. Parliament has now seen both the regulations and the accompanying guidance. It is therefore reasonable now to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with those assurances.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She makes a very good point about how the criteria have been drawn. The Kensington Society in Kensington and Bayswater has estimated that 45% to 50% of venues that currently have a licence would be between D and E, which is what is specified in the secondary legislation. So they obviously have concerns that that volume could generate a whole set of call-ins for things that would not really be considered strategic by any sort of common understanding. Does my hon. Friend have a similar concern about the volume, particularly for that licensing band in part A of the relevant statutory instrument?
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of premises that will be affected in central London by the statutory instrument as it was laid down. A large proportion will be open to this call-in power and that raises a really important question about whether City Hall is expecting to be able to call in that many, and indeed whether it would want to, and whether that fits in with what most people would consider a strategic intervention. I will come on to some questions for the Minister about how we might closely define a strategic intervention and monitor what a strategic call-in power might look like. We do have to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with the expectations during the passage of the Bill.
The concern today is not whether strategic powers should exist. There are many places across London that are of strategic significance to our future as a successful world city—and Parliament has already settled that question, and I recognise that. The concern today is whether strategic powers will remain genuinely strategic.
For communities such as Soho, where hospitality, culture and late-night activity are an integral part of the area’s character, a significant number of applications might fall within the category of strategic importance, and that really matters in Westminster and in the City of London. The City of Westminster contains around 4,000 licensed premises, with nearly half located in the west end and in St James’s ward, and I have some figures that I think are going to be really interesting for everyone present. I know everybody will be really pleased and interested to hear that 1,000 premises are licensed to 11 pm, 1,692 to midnight, 478 to 1 am, 131 to 2 am, 221 to 3 am, 22 to 4 am, 19 to 5 am and—this is really neat—24 premises open until 6 am so they are more like 24-hour premises. It is really important for everybody to acknowledge the number of premises that are open into the later hours, making sure that we are a truly global world city that is welcoming to people who want to be entertained through the night.
Of course, that concentration of licensed activity is unparalleled anywhere else in the country, and therefore even small shifts in licensing policy can have significant consequences not only for residents and local businesses, but for London’s wider cultural and night-time economy. That is precisely why Parliament must be confident that powers described as strategic remain genuinely strategic in practice.
Residents therefore have a reasonable question: if large numbers of applications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has drawn attention to—are potentially eligible, where is the line between a strategic exception and a routine intervention?
That leads to perhaps the most important point: being eligible for a call-in is not the same thing as being called in. The regulations determine which applications may be considered by the mayor. They do not require the mayor to intervene. The revised section 182—of Licensing Act 2003—guidance now provides greater clarity about the operation of the new regime. It establishes a London-wide framework, confirms the mayor’s strategic role, and explains how call-in powers are intended to operate.
But the publication of guidance does not in itself answer the practical questions that matter most to residents and local authorities. How many applications do the Government expect to qualify each year? How many call-ins does the mayor expect to make? How many venues across London are likely to fall within scope? On what basis will potentially eligible applications be selected for intervention? What evidence informed the thresholds that have been chosen? Those questions remain important because the impact of the regime will depend not on what may be called in, but on what is called in.
The City of London Corporation has also raised concerns about the practical implications of the new arrangements, and about the scale of applications that could potentially fall within scope, and local authorities across London continue to ask many of the same questions as residents. When will these powers be used? What criteria will guide the decision to call in? How will strategic considerations be balanced against local evidence? These are reasonable questions, and they deserve answers.
One of the strongest concerns I hear from residents is about local democratic control. Throughout the passage of the parent legislation, Ministers rightly spoke about neighbourhood voice, community empowerment and maintaining a strong democratic basis for decision making. The revised guidance itself emphasises the importance of community involvement in licensing decisions and the opportunities for local residents to have their say. Yet many residents still ask a simple question: if a resident speaks at a local licensing hearing, presents evidence on crime, noise, antisocial behaviour, dispersal and residential amenity, What democratic links exist between that participation and a subsequent determination by City Hall? Residents have every right to expect a meaningful voice in licensing decisions that affect where they live.
Licensing decisions often depend on highly local evidence about noise, crime patterns, dispersal routes and residential amenity. Anyone who has attended a licensing hearing, as I am sure many of us here this afternoon have done, will know that these cases frequently turn on detailed local knowledge of a particular building, street or neighbourhood. That local knowledge matters, and Westminster’s experience demonstrates that clearly. Soho’s success depends on getting the balance right between supporting culture, hospitality and economic activity and protecting the people for whom Soho is home.
What additional rights will residents have when an application is called in? How will they be able to make representations directly in a mayoral determination? What weight will be given to evidence heard by local licensing committees? How will borough licensing committees remain primary decision makers, rather than advisory bodies? How will the Government assess whether the new arrangements are strengthening, rather than weakening, community empowerment? My purpose here is not to argue against strategic objectives, to challenge the important role of London’s nightlife in its economic growth or to challenge these powers in principle; my focus is on safeguards, transparency and accountability. That is why I will continue to press for five practical measures.
First, we need clear public guidance from the mayor on the circumstances in which call-in powers will be exercised and what factors will inform those decisions. Secondly, we need annual transparency reporting, rather than waiting two years for the first statutory review. Thirdly, we need publication of every call-in decision with full reasons. Fourthly, we need meaningful opportunities for resident participation in every mayoral determination. Finally, we need the publication of annual data, broken down by local authority area, showing how many applications became eligible, how many were called in and which criteria triggered the intervention. If these powers are genuinely intended to be used sparingly, there should be no objection to that degree of transparency.
London’s success depends on maintaining the balance between growth and community. Soho’s success depends on maintaining the balance between being a world-famous destination and a place that people proudly call home. Residents deserve confidence that local voices will continue to matter; Parliament deserves confidence that powers described as exceptional will remain exceptional; and we all deserve confidence that implementation will match the assurances that Ministers gave when these powers were first proposed.
It is my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster to stand up for centuries-old communities who live side by side with thriving nightlife. I am absolutely determined that they will do so into the future, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate and for the significant effort that she has put into representing her constituents on this matter over a long period of time; I know how much it matters to her and to them. Hopefully I will address the points that she has made in the course of her speech, but I know that this will not be our final conversation on the issue, nor should it be.
This is about how we balance competing interests. We must recognise that London is a global city and acts as a draw, but it is also where people live and are part of a community. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to strike that balance. The new strategic licensing arrangements came into force yesterday. They give the mayor a strategic role in licensing across the capital, with a duty to publish a London-wide policy and a power to call in certain applications of potential strategic importance. Before I address their impact, it is important to explain the problem that the reforms are intended to solve.
London’s hospitality, cultural and night-time economy is central to the capital’s success and its appeal as a global city, but licensing decisions can have implications that extend beyond a single premises or borough, affecting London’s wider economy, cultural offer and international reputation. Individual boroughs are rightly focused on their local circumstances, and these reforms are intended to complement that local expertise with a strategic role for the mayor where an application may be significant to London as a whole. The aim is not to set local and London-wide interests against each other, but for them to complement each other. The aim is to support a licensing system that is capable of balancing those interests fairly while continuing to protect residents and uphold the licensing objectives.
Let me start with residents and the concerns that my hon. Friend has rightly raised on their behalf. I want to be clear that the protections at the heart of the licensing system remain unchanged. The four statutory licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—continue to apply. Those protections apply equally where the mayor intervenes. Any application that is called in will still be determined in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and with regard to the importance of promoting those objectives, while residents and other interested parties will retain their existing ability to make representations on individual applications. Residents have also had the opportunity to respond to the mayor’s consultation on his new strategic licensing policy, which will set out the wider framework for his strategic licensing role.
Alongside those opportunities for residents to make their voice heard, the new arrangements include specific transparency requirements around the mayor’s new strategic role. Advertising requirements will ensure that residents are informed when an application is identified as being potentially strategically important, and, if the mayor intervenes, of the decisions taken. There are clear lines of accountability. Mayoral directions remain subject to the existing rights of appeal, and where a direction is appealed, the mayor is legally responsible for defending it. Overall, residents will retain the protections at the heart of the licensing system, and transparency and clear accountability are built into the mayor’s new strategic role.
Let me turn to London’s licensing authorities. I recognise the concerns about what the mayor’s new role could mean for local decision making, as well as the additional responsibilities that it will place on licensing teams. I should reiterate that local licensing authorities will remain the default decision makers. They will continue to receive applications, consider representations, hold hearings where necessary and determine applications in the first instance. The mayor’s new role does not replace those core functions; it provides an additional strategic role for applications that meet the relevant criteria, with call-in decisions remaining discretionary.
Deirdre Costigan
The Minister makes a point about supporting local authorities in London. Will he commit to ensuring that local authorities are included in the two-year review of this measure? Will he look at the potential new burdens funding that might be required for local authorities?
Jim McMahon
I will come on to the new burdens funding shortly. I will mention in a short while the built-in review periods and the approach to those that she asks about.
The new arrangements will require some additional information sharing with the Greater London Authority. Those requirements are largely based on information that authorities already collect or have access to through the normal licensing process. Even so, we recognise that meeting those requirements may come with additional costs. The Government will therefore conduct a full new burdens assessment to ensure that local licensing authorities are appropriately reimbursed for new costs resulting from these powers.
We recognise that the new system will place demands on the GLA. It has been preparing for its new responsibilities, in addition to recruiting additional resources to support the operation of the new regime. Our aim is simple: to keep boroughs at the heart of decision making on licensing while ensuring that both they and the GLA are equipped to ensure that the new system works effectively.
Rachel Blake
Will the Minister comment on the part of the process where the Greater London Authority makes the decision to call in applications? As I discussed in my opening remarks, we know that there is quite a broad pool of eligible premises. I believe that my residents have a concern about how the decision to call in will be made and the transparency around that decision. They are concerned that some types of premises or premises operating in particular areas might seek to get that call-in, so we really seek transparency on that issue.
Jim McMahon
I will talk through that process shortly, and also cover what the criteria for potentially strategically important venues mean. I need to reiterate, though, that although keeping boroughs at the heart of licensing decisions is important to us, so too is ensuring that the system supports London’s wider growth.
That brings me to businesses and the central purpose behind the reforms: better supporting London’s hospitality and night-time economy. A thriving hospitality sector is fundamental to London’s success as a global city. We want a licensing system that gives responsible operators greater confidence to invest, adapt and grow. Giving businesses that confidence means ensuring that the new process does not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty, which is why the regulations establish clear statutory deadlines and procedures.
To address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the call-in power is designed to support a more enabling approach to licensing, rather than giving the mayor a means to block or further restrict applications. An application granted as applied for cannot be called in. Where the mayor intervenes, any conditions he imposes cannot, in his opinion, be more restrictive than those imposed by the licensing authority, and he can only direct that an application be rejected where the authority has itself rejected it. We believe that those protections and safeguards strike the right balance. They are intended to ensure that the new strategic role supports growth without creating unnecessary delay or uncertainty for businesses, while maintaining important protections for residents and the local community.
I now turn to the point about sites that are potentially strategically important to Greater London. As has been said in the debate, we have built in a requirement for the mayor’s call-in power to be reviewed after two years, and then at least every five years thereafter. I am happy to take away the particular point about the role of local authorities in that review process and confirm in writing the position.
To summarise one of the bigger concerns, because the scope of premises can feel quite wide, there is a concern that the proposal creates a completely double-run system—a process on top of the local licensing authority. In supporting this proposal and the new licensing regime, it is not our expectation as a Government that all the premises that are in scope will be called in by the mayor for a strategic decision. Our expectation is that most of them will go on as normal, and for them to be called in by the mayor, they would have to meet at least one of the criteria set out in law.
We believe that these reforms get the balance right between protecting local residents and communities and recognising that in many ways, London’s night-time economy is unique. Many people come to London not only to work and shop, but to experience the night-time economy—our theatres, bars, restaurants and nightclubs.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for his important clarification of the Government’s intention. Does he also accept that there is a big difference in rateable values between inner and outer London? One of the concerns of inner-London MPs such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) is that, almost by definition, we will end up with more venues in the potential call-in zone compared with outer London. That clarification for inner London is therefore particularly important.
Jim McMahon
We will need to see how that works in practice, because I think it could work both ways. I recognise that rateable values might be lower in outer London than in inner London, but that reflects the economic benefit that premises in inner London bring—that is why the business rates bill ends up being higher. It would be reasonable for the mayor to say that, for that reason, such premises clearly have a more important role to play than those of the same nature in an outer-London borough that might look the same on the outside. Those premises can play quite different roles economically in their contribution to the wider night-time economy, so that can probably work both ways.
Although I recognise all the concerns that have been raised, I believe that these reforms strike the right balance. They recognise London as a global city and the wider considerations that that brings, but balance that with the need to ensure that our local licensing authorities are empowered and their status is respected. I think we have set out how we will do that. Indeed, the extraordinary concentration of restaurants, music venues, theatres and nightlife in these areas is part of what makes them such attractive places, not just to visit but to live. That is why we should not treat the interests of residents and those of the hospitality sector as inherently opposed. These reforms are intended to balance them fairly, supporting responsible businesses and London’s wider growth while preserving the important role of boroughs and their accountability to local communities.
Rachel Blake
The Minister should be aware that some of the organisations where residents come together to represent their communities celebrate the nightlife in their neighbourhoods. Some have come together to support the re-establishment of particular celebrated nightlife venues, such as G-A-Y in Soho. I wanted to make it a matter of public record that many residents are clear about their passion for a lively nightlife, while balancing that with the residential character of an area.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend reinforces how it is not about putting residents in one basket and visitors from outside the city in another. Everybody benefits from a place that is thriving and active, where people feel welcome and that there is something for everyone. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I know from speaking to all the local MPs in the area who have made representations that that is very much the balance they are trying to strike, too. I commit to continuing our communication. I am keen to understand how the new arrangements work in practice and to hear from local experiences, and I know that Members will continue to make the case.
The regulations require the Secretary of State to review how these new arrangements are working in practice and to publish a report within two years of commencement. Further reviews, as I said earlier, will then be published at least every five years thereafter. It is not the case that these arrangements will be introduced and then simply left in place. Their impact will be kept under review, allowing us to assess how the system is working in practice for London businesses, licensing authorities and residents alike. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her continued work supporting local residents.
Question put and agreed to.