Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

We are working with sporting bodies to make sure they get this right.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help improve outcomes for young people.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Last month, we published our ground- breaking youth strategy, “Youth Matters”, the first cross-Government strategy for young people in England for over 15 years, to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, someone who cares and something to do. We are determined, as we breathe life into that strategy, to ensure it continues to be driven by young people across the country. I look forward to working with him to ensure that becomes a reality.

[Chris Vince]

I am in my usual place, you may notice, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Secretary of State for her work on this really important youth strategy. How can young people in my constituency of Harlow be empowered to take part in the youth strategy? She will be aware that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Specifically, how has she worked to engage hard-to-reach groups, such as young carers, to be part of the strategy?

[Lisa Nandy]

From the outset, we were absolutely determined that the strategy would reflect all young people. It was a delight to do a workshop with young carers as part of the development of the youth strategy to ensure that their needs and concerns were met. I really do look forward to working with my hon. Friend to help ensure we empower young people. The key way in which we are doing that as a Department, as we roll out the national youth strategy, is to ensure we only fund organisations that put young people in the driving seat of decisions about how that money is spent.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

A happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and to all the House staff. This is the first opportunity I have had to say that to you.

On 3 June 2024, a busy Monday morning in south-east London, criminals attacked Synnovis, an organisation that processes blood tests on behalf of our national health service. They did not turn up physically, but logged on to computers thousands of miles away and set off ransomware—malicious software that encrypts files from afar, making them unusable. The attack had a ripple effect across London hospitals. It delayed 11,000 appointments, blood transfusions had to be suspended and the company lost tens of millions of pounds.

This was not an isolated case. In the year leading up to September 2025, the National Cyber Security Centre dealt with 204 “nationally significant” incidents, meaning that they seriously disrupted central Government or our critical public services. That is more than double the 89 incidents in 2024. No one disputes that we must do everything we can to protect the UK from these attacks. The UK is the most targeted country by cyber-attacks in Europe, and it was the fifth most targeted nation in 2024 by nation state-affiliated threat actors. In 2024, it is estimated that UK businesses experienced over 8.5 million cyber-crimes in the 12 months preceding the survey, and that in that year more than four in 10, or 43%, of UK businesses were subject to a cyber-attack, affecting more than 600,000 businesses in total.

Significantly, cyber-attacks are estimated to cost UK businesses almost £15 billion each year, equivalent to 0.5% of the UK’s annual GDP, notwithstanding the wider economic effects of intellectual property theft or the experience of patients, as in the first example. The average cost of a significant cyber-attack for an individual business in the United Kingdom is estimated to be just over £190,000. There has been a 200% increase in global cyber-attacks on rail systems in the past five years, increasing the likelihood of severe disruption to the economy and to people’s daily lives.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that, as we become more and more reliant on IT systems—I am thinking in particular about the new patient registration system at the Princess Alexandra hospital in my constituency—it is more and more important that we combat potential cyber-attacks, particularly from foreign powers and enemies of this country? That is why the Bill is so crucial.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more. I gave the example of the Synnovis incident that brought blood transfusions in London to a halt, affecting thousands of patients. Our everyday lives are affected by this. As we modernise and digitise our economy and our Government, we have to ensure that our systems are as secure as possible, and cyber-security is right at the heart of that. This is not just a defensive issue; it is very much an economic growth issue as well, as we can see from the impact it has on our economy, our public services and the day-to-day lives of people, as in the example of our train systems that I just mentioned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

This is about making sure that we extend the scope of the 2018 regulations into other parts of the economy, and I will come on to that later in my contribution. It is about reporting things more quickly to ensure that the attacks can be seen and action can be taken more quickly. It is also about reporting to the regulators to give the regulators confidence and powers across a wider scope of sectors in the economy, and to give businesses the confidence that those sectors have to report to the regulators when things are going wrong so that swifter action can be taken. We can see from the host of recent high-profile issues, including at Hackney council, that it is important to ensure that this legislation goes through quickly and does the job that it is intended to do.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I apologise for intervening again. Is there a piece of work we need to do on culture? When businesses or the public sector are victims of cyber-crime, there is a danger that employees may feel embarrassed or nervous about reporting their concerns. We need to encourage people if they are victims of cyber-crime to come forward quicker and to recognise the challenges, rather than trying to hide them away and the issue becoming worse.

[Ian Murray]

While physical security and national security are issues for all of us, so is cyber-security. The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations to widen the scope into other areas of the economy where such issues have become much more prevalent—for example, data centres. I hope that doing so will give industries and sectors, including their employees, the confidence to report things to the regulators. Giving powers to the regulators will give businesses the confidence that they can report stuff; it is not a regulatory heavy hand dampening businesses. I hope that I can assure my hon. Friend and the rest of the House on that.

Before that significant number of interventions, I was talking about why this issue matters and gave statistics for recent cyber-security activity in the United Kingdom. As a result of all that, one of the very first things we did as a new Government after the election was announce this new cyber-security Bill, just 10 working days in. Since then, the Department has been talking to cyber experts, businesses and regulators to turn these proposals into the comprehensive, serious and proportionate piece of legislation that we present for Second Reading today—one that protects the public and strengthens national security without placing undue burdens on businesses. I appreciate that that is a fine balance, but I think that this Bill finds that balance, so I am confident that the whole House will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker, and thank you for putting the heating on. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government’s rationale for this legislation in the Secretary of State’s stead. I do not know why the Minister was demoted either, but I want him to know that we appreciate him.

The official Opposition recognise the scale of the cyber-security challenge that the country faces. If the pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital technology at a pace we had never before seen, then the advent of artificial intelligence will embed that technology into our economy in wholly new ways that bring not only opportunity but unprecedented risk. AI and automation will not only transform productivity but equip hostile states, criminal gangs and opportunists alike with tools capable of eroding our national defences at speed and at scale. It is right that Parliament legislates to raise the collective security bar. We on the Conservative Benches support that principle. However, legislation of this kind does not come around often. Cyber law takes time to develop, and once the Bill passes, it is unlikely that Parliament will return to this territory for some years. That means that we must ask two simple but very serious questions today: will this law work and is it enough?

Before we answer those questions, it is worth reminding ourselves of the real-world consequences of failure. Cyber risk is neither abstract nor theoretical. Last year, the UK experienced what is widely regarded as our most economically damaging cyber-incident to date when Jaguar Land Rover suffered a major attack. That was not a sophisticated act of cyber-warfare against the state—although such acts are happening with increasing regularity—but was carried out by a band of hackers. The consequences were enormous, however. For five weeks, Jaguar Land Rover was unable to operate its automated manufacturing lines, cyber-related costs mounted to nearly £200 million, and national economic output was visibly affected in that month alone. The real damage did not stop at the factory gates: hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain—many of them operating on thin margins—were pushed to the brink, workers faced uncertainty and contractors had their work paused.

Ultimately, the Government had to step in with a £1.5 billion loan guarantee to prevent wider economic fallout. When we consider the Bill, we must ask whether it would do anything to strengthen our collective resilience. That is one of the tests that this legislation ought to meet, and it is not yet clear that it does. Indeed, the attack on JLR would not have been stopped, as the Minister himself has made clear, because it would not have been in scope.

The cyber-threat landscape is evolving at an extraordinary pace. New research shows that cyber-attacks now cost our economy nearly £15 billion every year. High-profile breaches of businesses such as Marks and Spencer and the Co-op have demonstrated how quickly consumer confidence, jobs and supply chains can be put at risk. Last year alone, insurers paid out £197 million to help businesses recover from cyber-incidents. In fact, the collective cyber insurance bill of the FTSE 100 is now larger than the defence research and development budget. The Bill seeks to respond to one aspect of that reality by expanding the scope of regulation. Data centres, managed service providers, load controllers and designated critical suppliers will now fall within its ambit. That is a welcome acknowledgment that digitisation has introduced systemic risks that the original NIS regulations of 2018 did not adequately cover.

The Bill also strengthens the powers of regulators, introduces cost recovery mechanisms and tightens incident reporting requirements. Those measures are intended to modernise our cyber framework and address clear shortcomings identified in reviews of the NIS regime in 2020 and 2022. On paper, that all sounds sensible, but intent alone is not enough, which brings me back to our central concern: whether this law will work in practice in raising the standard of our collective resilience. The uncomfortable truth is that, in some of the most high-profile cases of cyber-attack, the penetration of systems was carried out by attackers using valid credentials. That means systems behaved normally. The breaches looked like legitimate access until it was too late. Human frailties were exploited: help desks were persuaded to reset passwords, and staff and contractors were impersonated. This Bill would help mainly after an attack—not before—by mandating reporting, improving intelligence sharing and increasing accountability.

[Chris Vince]

This is a friendly intervention, as I always like to get a bit of cross-party agreement where possible. I mentioned to the Minister the importance of changing the culture among employees to ensure that they feel confident about reporting cyber-attacks. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with that?

[Julia Lopez]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is correct: this is fundamentally about culture—that is the point that I am making. We can pass as many regulations as we like, but a lot of the holes in our cyber-security systems come down to human frailties. That means this challenge is not just about new laws but about changing a number of things to make us more resilient.

It is right not to dictate technical standards in primary law that will soon be outdated in the fast-moving world of technology, so the question is whether this law has the right mix of carrot and stick to make affected firms act in a way that raises the security bar—there are several areas where we fear it may not.

First, there is potentially an enforcement paradox. The Bill expands regulatory powers and increases the scale of potential fines, but the evidence from the existing regime does not suggest definitively that fines and new regulations deliver us greater cyber-resilience. Under the current NIS regulations, enforcement has been slow, inconsistent and often toothless. Very few significant penalties have been issued. Where they have been issued, the delay between incident and sanction has sometimes stretched beyond two years. That delay matters, because it actively undermines deterrence and disconnects accountability from operational reality. Simply widening the scope of regulation without ensuring that regulators are properly resourced, empowered and required to act quickly risks creating obligations that exist on paper but lack any real-world bite.

We also have concerns about the Bill’s cost recovery model. Funding regulators through levies on the organisations that they oversee risks unintended consequences in terms of improving our resilience. For large firms, the cost burden may be manageable, but for smaller enterprises it amounts to an additional operational tax that could divert scarce capital away from cyber-defence, staff training and innovation.

There is also a structural risk here. Regulators that are reliant on fee income might face incentives to expand scope and complexity unnecessarily, creating bureaucratic drag that crowds out voluntary, market-led initiatives, which often raise standards more effectively than prescriptive regulation.

More generally, I worry that this Bill will play into tech monopolies. The companies that thrive in this kind of environment are those with big compliance and legal departments. That concentrates risk and makes our tech economy less diverse, with serious implications that I shall come on to.

There may be reporting challenges too. A two-stage reporting process within 24 and 72 hours may be achievable for large, well-resourced organisations with in-house cyber teams, but for smaller operators it risks creating a compliance culture focused on speed, not substance.

There is also the danger of duplication. Many organisations already face overlapping reporting obligations under UK GDPR, sectoral rules and existing legislation. Without simplification and proportionality, the administrative load could be significant, once again diverting attention and resource from the very cyber-threat management that the Bill seeks to improve. We need to avoid this legislation becoming a “something must be done” Bill that totally misses the mark.

The Bill also fails to grapple properly with the human factor in cyber-security, which has already been talked about by the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Technology alone does not keep organisations safe; governance matters. Yet board-level ownership of cyber-risk is moving in the wrong direction. Only 27% of businesses now have a board member explicitly responsible for cyber-security, down from 38% just three years ago. Without mechanisms to ensure senior accountability, fines risk becoming little more than a cost of doing business. Directors remain insulated while operational teams are left to carry the can. National cyber-resilience depends not just on systems and software, but on leadership, culture and accountability at the very top.

For those reasons, ahead of Committee consideration, we on the Opposition Benches are examining how the legislation can be strengthened, while continuing to support its core objectives. In the meantime, regulators must be properly equipped with the right powers, resources and clarity from Parliament on the intent of the law. Sanctions must be applied swiftly and consistently, and guidance must be clear, so that enforcement is credible and deterrence is real.

The Government should also look at how reporting obligations are calibrated. A one-size-fits-all approach might place disproportionate burdens on smaller firms, and it might be better to ensure that reporting thresholds reflect the size, complexity and risk profile of an organisation.

Equally, the funding of regulators must be transparent and predictable. There have to be safeguards against regulatory expansion for its own sake and firm assurances that funds raised are reinvested directly into improving national cyber-resilience, not absorbed by administrative overheads. While the Bill rightly prioritises critical national infrastructure, it cannot afford to ignore high-risk sectors that sit beyond its immediate scope.

There is also a major role for market-based solutions. Cyber insurance, sector-wide intelligence sharing and collaborative resilience initiatives can all complement regulation. These tools can reduce risk and improve preparedness without adding unnecessary legislative complexity.

The review cycle set out in the Bill may be too slow for the threat landscape we face and the pace of technological change. Annual or biannual reviews might allow Parliament to scrutinise effectiveness, respond to emerging threats and ensure that the legislation remains fit for purpose.

Let me make some more general points about the Government’s approach to cyber-security and resilience, and issues about the risk of dependence and threat from adversaries. I see no evidence from this Government that they are thinking with any clarity about the risks of long-term technological dependency and lock-in—quite the opposite, in fact. Large parts of our economy now depend on secure, high-quality digital infrastructure, and that reliance will only increase as AI advances. Whoever provides that infrastructure will wield huge future leverage. It was that reality that ultimately drove the change of heart over Chinese tech sitting at the core of our 5G telecom networks a few years ago.

However, the Government are seemingly betting every chip on US hyper-scalers. They provide our data centres, supply the platforms on which Government Departments are run and, more often than not, are the ones winning all the Government contracts. These investments will provide our companies with things that they need, from compute power to increasingly sophisticated AI platforms, but the UK is doing little simultaneously to mitigate our increased technological dependency. When I say “technological”, we need to understand that technology is what we now run our defence systems, factories, energy networks and communications on. Technology is the plumbing of our nation.

During September’s much crowed-about state visit by President Trump, this Government were visibly begging for good economic headlines after the humiliating resignations of the Deputy Prime Minister and the ambassador to the US, not to mention the uncontainable mess of the Chancellor’s first Budget and the threat of her second Budget. The US-UK tech partnership was the result, with a huge amount of smoke and mirrors deployed over what it actually contained. Whatever substance lay within it, we heard just before Christmas that it had been paused, used as leverage by the US while other trade negotiations were under way.

I am not criticising the US Administration for skilfully playing their hand in their national interest; I am asking this Government rapidly to wake up to the reality of a new world in which the post-war settlement is coming to an end—one that has been giving clues to its existence for many years, since long before President Trump came into office. The United States remains a vital ally, but in this new era Britain must be very clear-eyed about risk, the reality of hard power and the need to protect our sovereign interests.

Cyber-risk requires as much thought about the fundamentals of plumbing as it does about the laws that try to manage how humans use or exploit technology. The UK Government have a vast procurement budget for which our own firms ought to be able to make a successful bid, but UK tech tells me consistently that, for all the talk in the Government’s AI strategy of sovereign tech capability, it has not got a look-in since Labour has been in power. I am concerned that this Bill should not introduce new, burdensome regulation for UK firms in a way that benefits non-UK incumbents with giant compliance teams and legal resources in a way that would exacerbate the risk of vendor lock-in.

Let us turn to another risk. The private sector will have noticed that the new obligations in this Bill broadly do not touch the public sector, where cyber-risk remains red-light-flashingly large, notwithstanding the public cyber strategy that was thrown out today in implicit acknowledgment of that gaping hole. Knowing that the public sector holds such enormous cyber-risk, this Labour Government choose not to minimise it, but to create a brand-new one—a hulking great identity system mandated for anyone who wants a job and, we now hear, possibly for new-born babies. It is mandatory identity by stealth, not consent, and with no honesty about it.

It is not to be against the ability of people to verify themselves digitally for banking, to access certain online services or to stop fraud to think that Labour’s mandated digital identity plan is a complete rotter. The Association of Digital Verification Professionals called what Labour inherited on digital identity a

“world-leading model for data sovereignty that digitised liberty rather than diluted it”.

The citizen, not Government, would be in control. This naive Government are crowding out private sector expertise and making everyone have one of these identities by stealth. They have no idea what this system will cost, and they will not be honest about what it will be used for.

What of the cyber-security of this system? The system on which this digital identity will be run was breached during red team testing last year. When I asked the Secretary of State if that system has now met the National Cyber Security Centre’s cyber-security standard, no answers came. Whistleblowers have continued to speak out about the vulnerabilities of the system, and there is no sense whatsoever from Government that the dodgy digital identity plan will be paused until such a point when they are confident about cyber-security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

2. What steps the Church of England is taking to support people on low incomes in rural communities.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)]

Our most recent figures show that the Church of England was involved in more than 31,000 community projects across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Harlow. In addition, funding for churches in the lowest income communities is set to increase from £91 million in the past three years to £133.5 million.

[Chris Vince]

In the local authority of Harlow, 30% of children are living in poverty, according to research by Loughborough University and the End Child Poverty coalition. Poverty also exists in rural areas of my constituency, such as Sheering and Nazeing. Many families turn to their local place of worship for support. Luckily, Harlow has several places of worship of different faiths and denominations offering help. Can my hon. Friend say a little more about what the Church is doing in the area to support families struggling with the cost of living?

[Marsha De Cordova]

My hon. Friend is a good representative for the people of Harlow. In his constituency, St Mary Magdalene church runs a vibrant Sunday school and mothers’ union, with lots of events and activities for all the community. St Stephen’s church runs a parent and toddler group while also supporting local care homes. St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches partner with the local food bank and run a Bounty club with the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust, offering good, healthy food at a low cost.

Youth Services

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

When we talk about youth services, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. We often discuss crime prevention, education and mental health in silos, but the thread that runs through all those issues is clear: we need to invest in our young people through properly funded, long-term youth services.

Scotland has a proud tradition in youth work. In my constituency, youth work takes many forms, from council programmes to community-led projects in our towns and villages. In every case, the services work to address inequality, isolation and opportunity gaps. Let me highlight two examples. The Callander youth project has turned a former hotel into a thriving hostel and social enterprise, and offers employability programmes and training opportunities to young people. In Bannockburn, the Eastern Villages sports hub delivers sport and community activity in partnership with Milton football club, Bannockburn rugby club and St Modans cricket club. That shows how sport, youth work and community development can go hand in hand.

Those are fantastic examples of grassroots ambition, but behind the energy and creativity lies a deep sense of fragility. Too many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding. I want to recognise the role of organisations such as the National Lottery Community Fund and many others that have stepped in to keep services running.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and is showing why Scotland produces some of the greatest footballers of all time, like Billy Bremner. He mentioned the short-term funding of youth projects. My experience from my work with young carers is that part of the issue is that new projects need to be funded. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need long-term funding for not just existing projects, but new ones, too?

[Chris Kane]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I thank him for recognising Billy Bremner—a very good Stirling man.

As I was saying, many projects rely on a patchwork of short-term funding, but that reliance points to a deeper problem: the retreat of local government, especially under the SNP Government in Holyrood, who have delivered a real-terms cut of over 15% to core budgets for local authorities. That makes it near impossible to deliver on statutory obligations, let alone expand services for the future.

When youth services are cut, the impact is not abstract. We see it in worsening mental health, rising youth crime and lost opportunities. We know what works. Youth services build confidence, boost attainment, improve wellbeing and support employability, and those are generational investments, not optional extras. That is why I welcome the UK Labour Government’s commitment to embedding youth services alongside mental health and careers support in communities. However, Westminster action only goes so far when Holyrood is pulling in the opposite direction. If the SNP is serious about equity and opportunity, it must properly fund councils and commit to long-term support for youth services. This is not just about budgets; it is about hope, and acting on our belief in the potential of every young person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) on securing this important debate. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate a leading youth provider; I congratulate Aspire in Arts in Nuneaton on its 10-year anniversary. From numerous conversations with the leader of the youth group, Amina, I know about the organisation’s struggle over the past 10 years. The success of its projects is truly a testament to the dedication of the staff; it is a true labour of love. Given that the YMCA has estimated that Warwickshire county council has cut a staggering 84% from our youth budget since 2010, it is amazing that Aspire in Arts has developed a fantastic local asset that provides support for hundreds of young people. It adds value to our young people’s lives with art, games, cooking and health provision and education. The music provision is incredible and is about to get even better, as performance spaces and a recording studio are established. The organisation is building the capital culture and creative industry talent that we need for the future, while truly enhancing lives and broadening horizons.

Crucially, Aspire in Arts provides a safety net, an open door and a safe place for young people who have nowhere else to go; those who need support and those at risk of bullying, harassment and exploitation. It also gives a positive choice to those at risk of entering into criminality. Indeed, we already know that youth provision reduces the rate of youth reoffending by 13% and reduces the severity of the crimes.

The positive impact of youth services transforms lives and maps out a pathway to embracing passions and nurturing talent, supporting young people to learn the skills that they need to live successful lives in the future. In Nuneaton, more than 20% of our young people are economically inactive. Youth crime, antisocial behaviour and youth violence are enormous issues that have resulted in tragic outcomes in recent weeks. Aspire has been holding the frontline, supporting these young people through unmet mental health and SEND needs and providing alternative provision when the barriers to attending school are just too great.

[Chris Vince]

I was waiting for an opportunity to mention young carers, who are a hugely important part of the greater picture of young people and who often face many barriers to education. Does my hon. Friend agree that any consultation with young people should include young carers, as has my consultation in Harlow?

[Jodie Gosling]

Absolutely. It is clear from interactions with young carers and parents of children who are not in school that the gratitude for youth services and the value they add is immense.

The casework stories from youth provision in Nuneaton are often harrowing: young people in crisis and on the edge of suicide, self-harm and mental health episodes, and victims of violence and abuse. The open-door policy means that we have a safety net to catch and support them. The net that the organisation provides saves lives, helps them rebuild and offers support for a brighter future.

Evidence suggests that £1 invested in youth provision results in £3.40 to £6 for the taxpayer, but I think the value it adds is incalculable, especially when we consider the impact on other services, such as health, education, policing and justice. Aspire in Arts works collaboratively with other youth groups to provide services across the north of Warwickshire and to establish ambitious, inspiring plans to support our young people. It would like to do more, and with secure funding instead of piecemeal, day-to-day, hand-to-mouth funding, it would be able to secure a place for young people across Nuneaton and to support everyone.

Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary

Chris Vince Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and welcome all that the Government have done in preparation for VE Day and VJ Day.

The 80th anniversaries of VE Day and VJ Day are a time for the nation to come together and celebrate the conclusion of the second world war—a war in which good triumphed over evil and liberated millions of people from the horrors of fascism. On VE Day, millions rejoiced across the western world, relieved that years of conflict and immense hardship were finally coming to an end. On 8 May 1945, British people—including Her Royal Highness, the then Princess Elizabeth—flocked to the streets to celebrate the defeat of Nazi Germany and the liberation of Europe. People danced long into the night, attended street parties and looked forward to a brighter future.

We must not forget, however, that as those parties wore on, troops from Britain and the Commonwealth, as well as our allies, continued to take the struggle to Japan. It was not until August 1945 that there was victory over Japan. VJ Day marked the conclusion of the war in the far east, and we must never forget the sacrifices of the troops who helped to liberate millions of people from imperial Japan.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of my constituents, Pam Gillespie, often leads the VJ Day commemorations in Harlow because her father, George Money, was a far east prisoner of war. Will the shadow Minister join me in thanking people like Pam? Does he agree that it is hugely important that we recognise VJ Day and that, while the war in Europe may have been over, there was still a war going on and many servicemen were still giving their lives?

[Saqib Bhatti]

On this point, the hon. Gentleman and I are friends; I thank Pam and her family for their sacrifice and for all that happens on VJ Day.

VE Day and VJ Day must forever be remembered and etched into our memories. I am sure this whole House will agree that it is important that we remember these historic days for years to come. This year, 2025, is especially important, as it may well be one of the last years troops who served in the second world war are still alive.

I want to ask the Minister, on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State, if she will comment directly on his campaign to bring home a statue of Vera Lynn. The late Sir David Amess launched an appeal to create a lasting memorial to Dame Vera Lynn, whose songs kept our troops’ morale high, often in times of huge uncertainty and great peril. During the battle of Britain, when it looked like the Nazis might invade Britain at any moment, she really did keep the bluebirds singing over the “White Cliffs of Dover”. The committee need to raise £350,000 to complete the bronzing process and bring the memorial home from the Czech Republic. Could the Minister confirm that this fitting tribute will indeed be brought home?

Every man and woman who served and serves in our armed forces stood and stands up for Britain and the precious values and rights for which we have fought for generations: democracy, liberty and the rule of law. We are forever in debt to the brave souls who fought to defend this country—as the saying goes, freedom is not free. To all those serving, those who have served and those who have sacrificed, we say thank you.

Yesterday, thousands of people descended upon the Mall to watch all three services march in the excellent VE Day parade. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to everyone who took part, but especially to the veterans who made the occasion so special. Today, Her Majesty the Queen will visit the Tower of London to see the 30,000 poppies on display to mark and reflect the sacrifices made by so many in the second world war. Here in Parliament, there will be a celebratory concert in Westminster Hall, where the fantastic parliamentary choir will perform alongside some special guests. On VE Day itself, nearly 2,000 people, including Their Majesties the King and the Queen and a host of veterans, will mark the 80th anniversary with a special service at Westminster Abbey.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Leeds United supporter. He talks about the top six. Is it not true that Leeds United could have found itself in the top six of the English premier division had it not been for bad ownership and bad financial decisions, and that is what this Bill seeks to deal with?

[Chris Evans]

Of course, Peter Ridsdale’s name is blackened in Leeds. It is also blackened in Arsenal, Barnsley and wherever he has been. Leeds is an important point. We talk about the glory days of Don Revie. We forget about the early 2000s, when we were overspending on certain players. There were massive wages where players had been sold and wages were still being paid. It was ultimately trying to bring success to the club, but it failed, and when it started failing there were no safeguards in place, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I believe and hope—the eternal optimist—that we both will be celebrating a top-four finish next season and will be back in the champions league for the first time since the 2000s.

The huge issue I have with this Bill, though—again, this is a framework piece of legislation—is that when the independent football regulator comes about, they will have to set out their rules and guidance. That will likely run to hundreds of pages and will take time, so the Government must make regulations specify which leagues will follow the legislation initially. They also need to bring about a timetable to ensure that when that framework legislation is written out, it is done in a way that does not affect clubs’ futures. The fact is that a lot of clubs with small budgets have to plan for the future, so I hope that a strict timetable is put in place for governance and other issues that clubs must meet.

I turn to my concerns about the Bill. I have already talked about UEFA and the scaremongering from the Conservatives about English clubs somehow being banned from Europe, and I hope I have addressed that. The second concern is that the owners’ test might require some current owners to sell their clubs, although again that is scaremongering from the Conservatives. That is unlikely, though there is a possibility of some impact on the ownership of clubs in the next few years. The new test in the Bill develops the tests already applied by the Premier League and the EFL to date, and the most significant changes are likely to emerge in the long term as we see more in the guidance and overall approach from the IFR to how it applies to the test in practice.

It is also important to bear in mind that the Bill is focused on the application of the test to new owners purchasing a club, rather than owners already in place, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State touched on earlier. However, it is possible that some current owners may find themselves subject to the IFR applying the test if new information raising concerns about their suitability comes to light in future. I hope that amendments will be made in Committee to address that.

I broadly support the Bill, but I want to return to something that needs to be addressed, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Throughout writing the Don Revie book, I was heavily involved with the players and met Johnny Giles, who is probably the greatest midfielder to come out of Ireland—sorry, Roy Keane. I met his son Michael and his cousin John Stiles, who is the son of Nobby Stiles, who was a 1966 World cup winner. Unfortunately, Nobby—like so many other professionals and many of that World cup winning side—succumbed to dementia and Alzheimer’s. They formed the Football Families for Justice, a voluntary organisation that campaigns on behalf of ex-professional footballers who have died because of neurodegenerative diseases incurred in the course of their work.

Footballers suffer neurodegenerative diseases at four to five times the national average. It is something that needs to be investigated. Alzheimer’s and CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—which is usually suffered by boxers from blows to the head, is five times the national average for footballers. Motor neurone disease, which claimed the life of my hero Don Revie, is four times the national average, and Parkinson’s is twice the national average. That needs to be investigated.

This is the goal of the FFJ:

“We call on the leaders of the football industry to act with urgency in allocating a small proportion of their massive wealth to address the tragedy of dementia and other neuro-degenerative diseases suffered by so many ex-professionals”

and

“to meet the needs of these victims with respect and kindness through best-in-class support, including care home costs and financial assistance for their widows, as required.”

When the football regulator comes about, I hope that research into medical conditions is part of its remit, to support people who have given so many others so much pleasure over the years.

I also hope that the football regulator will investigate not just the leagues but the Professional Footballers’ Association and the way it is run as a trade union. There are serious concerns about the pay of the chief executive and the way in which that so-called union is being run. I hope that that will be part of the football regulator’s remit.

I hope that there is something we can do to ensure that the tragedies suffered by Nobby Stiles, Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton—legends whose names trip off the tongue—are not suffered by their successors, such as Harry Kane.

As I said, in the main, I support the Bill. It is a good Bill. I am disappointed that Conservative Members have decided to take a crazy decision, even though the Bill is almost identical to theirs. I believe that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Daventry, supports the Bill in his heart, but that other forces—mainly the leader of the Conservative party—have probably changed his mind somewhat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

No, I will make some progress on this point, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

As a former employee of a football club, Hull City, and as someone who has worked for a national governing body of a sport at the Rugby Football Union, and for a national elite sport funding body at UK Sport, I have some experience of this issue. Each of those bodies—the EFL, the EPL and the FA—has a role in regulation.

[Chris Vince]

As a fellow Leeds United supporter, the hon. Gentleman was probably prepared for me to talk about the finances around the transfer of Seth Johnson to Leeds United, but does he recognise the words of John Madejski, who said that the best way to become a millionaire is to be a billionaire and own a football team? Does he recognise that the current ownership model needs to change?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Those of us who support a club that was previously owned by Ken Bates and Massimo Cellino have had our fair share of rough ownership over the years.

Coming back to the wider landscape and who should regulate, above the Football Association, EFL and EPL we have UEFA and FIFA as international bodies representing the global game, and they each have a regulatory function. I believe that instead of the Government creating yet another quango, headed up by a Labour party crony, they should be working with the Premier League, EFL and FA to resolve current concerns such as financial sustainability and fit and proper ownership. That would be a far more satisfactory outcome for the clubs and ensure that sport and politics are kept at arm’s length.

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang). It was John Madejski who said that the best way to be a millionaire is to be a billionaire and buy a football club.

As well as being a supporter of Harlow Town football club who saw the effect on the mental health of fans when we had to withdraw from the league due to ongoing pitch issues, because they were not able to go and see their wonderful football team, I support another football team who, not too long ago, would have put fear in the hearts of the opposition players. They say that every team has one hard man, but Leeds United had 11. Unfortunately, due to financial mismanagement, I saw Leeds on the edge of self-destruction. As we are celebrating International Women�s Day at the weekend, we should be aware that when a club suffers the financial issues that Leeds United did, the women�s and youth teams and the community aspect of the club are cut to finance the first team.

I am running out of time but let me say that, sadly, the days of Bremner, Lorimer and Jack Charlton seem a long way away, even with the offer of Bielsa-ball. To those who think that we should not intervene in football governance I say that, as elected representatives, it is our job to represent the community.

Non-league Football Clubs

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber to discuss an issue that many of my constituents in Redditch and the villages, along with constituents across the country, care so deeply about: non-league football. I am grateful to the Minister who will respond, and I put on record my thanks for her steadfast commitment to bringing in the Football Governance Bill. I know that she cares deeply about and is heavily invested in the future of our nation’s favourite game. I also thank the various football clubs, organisations and supporters who have contacted me to tell me their positive and negative stories about what is happening in their communities.

I am blessed in my constituency to have several excellent non-league football clubs, including Redditch Borough football club and the aptly named Sporting Club Inkberrow FC, but today I will speak directly to Redditch United’s contribution to our community. Non-league football clubs attract local fans and generate money through ticket sales, concessions such as food, drink and merchandise, and parking fees. The funds flow directly into the local economy, benefiting surrounding businesses, such as pubs, cafés, restaurants and shops.

In partnership with the Football Association, Redditch United has commissioned a study on the club’s various impacts, and the results are staggering. United’s total direct economic value to the local economy is over £2.5 million. The club generates nearly £200,000 in total health value, nearly £20,000 in social value and over £1 million in wellbeing value—all from just 10 full-time staff and 50 part-time staff. Those numbers, and that effectiveness, would make any local authority, public health unit or Government scheme blush.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend will notice that I have found my Harlow Town FC badge and have worn it for the debate, and I welcome the importance he places on non-league football. Does he agree that it is not just the paid staff members of the club whom we should recognise, but the huge number of volunteers? I pay particular tribute to a Welsh lady who is our secretary, Donna Harvey. It is the community feel that brings people together and makes non-league football so special.

[Chris Bloore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the incredible impact of volunteers on our local football clubs. Despite the professionalism of non-league football clubs in recent years, they would not exist if it was not for volunteers like his constituent.

Non-league football is often more affordable for fans, allowing people greater access to entertainment in their community. The relatively low cost of attending matches means that more people can engage with the sport and participate in local economic activities surrounding the home grounds. United charges £123 for a season ticket, and crowds have trebled in the last five years.

Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. We all recognise what the Bill is trying to achieve and agree that the Government should look at a review into this area. I also thank her for her recognition of the harms of gambling. I have friends who are recovering gambling addicts, and I know what a huge and damaging impact it has had on their lives.

I want to take a moment to recognise some of the charities in my constituency, many of which I have had first-hand experience of working with. I had the honour of working for Streets to Homes, a charity that supports homeless people, rough sleepers and the hidden homeless. There is also Action for Family Carers—a speech does not go by without me mentioning young carers in this place—and Razed Roof, an inclusive theatre company that I had the pleasure of visiting yesterday. In short, it gives adults with learning difficulties the opportunity not only to socialise, but to thrive and be a huge part of the community. I look forward to its performance at the Holocaust Memorial Day service on Sunday.

I will quickly mention YCT—another charity of which I am a trustee—which provides counselling support to young people in my constituency. The problem with mentioning charities in our constituencies is that there is always a danger of missing one out—I am sure that I will get an email later. I will quickly mention Livewire, Butterfly Effect Wellbeing, Rainbow Services and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North East Fife, the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust.

I will talk briefly about my issues with funding for charities, having worked in the charity sector myself. When charities look at getting funding, that funding is often very short term, and funding organisations always talk about new projects yet fail to recognise that quite a lot of charities just need ongoing funding for the important work they already do. I really emphasise the importance of looking at that.

I will finish by quoting my favourite Prime Minister and—controversially—disagreeing with him.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

Which one?

[Chris Vince]

Members will work it out. He once said:

“Charity is a cold grey loveless thing.”

We can all agree that we live in a very different world from when Clement Attlee was Prime Minister. The charities in my constituency of Harlow do a great deal of important work—I know that as I have been part of that myself—and I think we all agree that how they are funded needs to be looked at. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, when she can talk us through that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is a huge champion for the horseracing industry. Of course, the Government and I recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British sporting culture and the rural economy in particular. We are disappointed that talks have not been successful. The Government have heard racing’s concerns about the financial checks, and about the fact that there has not been an agreement. The Minister with responsibility for gambling and the Secretary of State continue to work on this issue.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on supporting creative education.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

My hon. Friend will know that the Education Secretary has launched a review of the national curriculum to put art, sport and music back at its heart, where they belong. We were appalled by the way that the previous Government ran down the creative subjects, leading to a huge drop-off in the number of young people taking those subjects at GCSE. Labelling them all as Mickey Mouse subjects is not just entirely offensive but incredibly damaging to the economy. The creative industries support one in seven jobs in this country, and we are determined to equip our young people to get those jobs, contribute to this country and write the next chapter of our national story.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Every young person deserves to experience the magic of music. Thanks to wonderful organisations in my constituency of Harlow such as Rock School and Livewire, many get that opportunity, but not all of them. What is she doing to work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that young people can discover their talent, wherever they come from?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and we are determined for that to change. I am not sure whether I have mentioned that I recently went on a visit with Ed Sheeran—[Interruption.] Thirty-eight times, says my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism. In Ipswich, an entire ecosystem is being created that equips young people with those skills and that love of music at school, and goes all the way through enabling them to perform at smaller and larger live music venues, and to get the skills that they need to work in the music industry. We would like to replicate that model around the country. We are working with the newly formed Ed Sheeran Foundation and others to progress this model. As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, I have asked him to come up with a 10-point plan to support the music industry. By the time we have finished, it will probably be about 100 points, but we make no apologies for wanting to grip this issue and bring the magic of music to every child in the country.