Non-league Football

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) on securing this important debate. I hope he is not too intimidated by the size of the crowd in here this afternoon. [Laughter.] He is a passionate advocate for non-league football and his own club. He is a dedicated supported of Hartlepool and is a season ticket holder.

Hartlepool United is a club that has seen the highs and lows of the professional and non-league game over its history. As a Scot, I feel a bit of a fraud responding in this debate, because I do not know much about English non-league football. I do know a lot about Scottish non-league football. My own club, Heart of Midlothian, is at the top of the Scottish premiership this season, four points clear of Rangers and flying high.

[Paul Waugh]

Speaking of clubs that are at the top of their league, Rochdale are at the top of the national league right now. Despite that, we do strongly support the 3UP—and three down—campaign, because although we may well benefit this year from going straight up, we know all too often that clubs can sometimes rack up lots of points but still not go up, as York City did last season even though they were 20 points ahead of Oldham.

As a season ticket holder, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), it is really important that we reward the loyalty of fans and footballers who play for clubs such Rochdale, Hearts and Hartlepool. I also want to pay tribute to Ian Henderson, who marked his 41st birthday last weekend with a goal and an assist and who plays for Rochdale as our record goal scorer.

[Ian Murray]

With Ian Henderson’s age, maybe there is still time for my hon. Friend to score a hat trick to take the Dale up. He mentioned in his previous intervention the Dale Trust and Dale 1907, and I pay tribute to them. We tend to forget that, right across the country, all our football clubs have strong community spirit and strong charities and trusts attached to them that do so much in the local community—Big Hearts is attached to my football club. Indeed, the reason I mention my club is not just to get it on the record, as we always like to do, but because it is the largest fan-owned club in the UK. That fan ownership was born out of ownership crisis. The club was owned by a Russian-born oligarch from Lithuania, but when it went into administration and liquidation, the fans bought out the club and now it is riding high.

When we see what has been done at Hartlepool— I pay tribute to Landon Smith for taking over the club—hopefully it will have a bright future with that settled ownership. Clubs such as the Pools—or the “monkey hangers”, a nickname which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool did not mention—are not just sports teams; they are part of the very identity of our towns and the communities within them. They are the institutions that provide pride in place, which is a concept that I know my hon. Friend champions, and they play a vital role in the social and economic fabric of all our communities. Without our football clubs, our communities would be hollowed out, so congratulations to everyone who runs a non-league club.

British and English football is a global success story. Of course, it was invented in Scotland, and Scotland won the world cup in 1967 by beating England at Wembley. [Laughter.] This Government are committed to ensuring that football’s foundations remain strong, sustainable and supported for generations to come, and crucially, that fans are put first. That is really important.

As my hon. Friend has highlighted, the influence of non-league football extends far beyond the pitch. Clubs are frequently the beating heart of our communities, serving as hubs for social cohesion, education and physical activity, and bringing people and our communities together. Department for Culture, Media and Sport research has shown that the sport and physical activity sector contributes £53 billion to our national economy. We must also look at the major social value: the £8 billion of wellbeing value created by grassroots and non-league football and the £43 million saved for our NHS every single year from fans’ involvement in their clubs. Whether it is Hartlepool United’s work with local youth or the thousands of smaller clubs across the country run by volunteers, the Government recognise that every pound invested in non-league football is an investment in the health and happiness of our nation and our communities—and my goodness, don’t we need a bit of that in our communities?

A key pillar of our support for the game is ensuring long-term sustainability through the Football Governance Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in July last year. That historic legislation establishes the Independent Football Regulator, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool mentioned. For the first time, we have a statutory body with the powers to ensure that clubs are run sustainably and to protect the heritage that the fans hold dear—the very lifeblood of the game. Importantly for today’s debate, the regulator’s remit includes the top five tiers of the men’s game, of which Hartlepool and Rochdale are part. That means that clubs in the national league benefit from oversight that demands financial resilience and meaningful fan engagement.

We have also given the regulator backstop powers to intervene in financial distributions. If football is unable to reach an agreement, we want to see a fairer share of the game’s wealth flowing down the pyramid system, ensuring that the prosperity at the very top of the game supports the sustainability of those further down. Non-league football provides the stars—the premier league players—of the future.

The sustainability of non-league football was fundamentally challenged during the covid era and, indeed, post covid. The sport survival package, which was worth £13.4 million in loans, supported 35 non-league clubs when their need was most acute in response to unprecedented circumstances—I know that that has been a huge issue for Hartlepool. We understand that for many clubs, the legacy of that turbulent period remains a challenge. That is why the Department continues to work closely with Sport England, and its loan agent, which regularly engages with borrowers to monitor their financial position.

Physical infrastructure is important and is often a substantial overhead for grassroots community clubs. That is why we are continuing our investment through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which is delivering £98 million this year alone for community clubs below step 6 of the national league system. I am pleased that we have recently confirmed that £85 million will be committed for 2026-27 as well, building on the huge success of the grassroots programme. We understand that for the clubs that are climbing the tiers of the national league system, the requirements for stadium infrastructure become more intensive. That is why we work so closely with the Football Foundation, which my hon. Friend mentioned, that also delivers the Premier League Stadium Fund. Although that is the Premier League’s own fund, its delivery through the Football Foundation ensures that it is aligned with our shared goals for a sustainable pyramid.

I will touch on the 3UP campaign, which is the main thrust of the debate—maybe we will only need “one up” this season if the Dale end up at the top of the division. The Government recognise the strengthen of feeling on the 3UP campaign. It was a major debating point in both Houses during the passage of the Football Governance Act. However, decisions about the structure of football competitions, including promotion and relegation arrangements, are rightly a matter for the footballing authorities, as my hon. Friend says. Otherwise, if we had the power to do so, I would be standing here announcing an extra three or six points for Heart of Midlothian football club. It is not in the power of Ministers to deal with the footballing authorities in that way.

[Mr Brash]

I should probably point out that my father was a Hibs fan as a child—I hope that does not act against me in this debate. The Minister mentioned that the Football Governance Act requires meaningful fan engagement. Given that fans are so unanimously behind the 3UP campaign, would he see it as a failure of engagement if we do not see that change coming forward?

[Ian Murray]

After my hon. Friend’s confession about his father being a Hibs supporter, I do not know whether he has gone from being my hon. Friend to just a hon. Gentleman. He is right, and fan involvement in the game was the key driver in the Football Governance Act. One of the key drivers of fan ownership at my own club was to have fan’s voices heard. Fans are the lifeblood of the game. Whether it is ticket prices, the colour of the football club, the name or where they play, all those issues are key because they make football what it is and are why we support the clubs that we do. I hope the EFL listens to the fans on this and sees the strength of feeling on what needs to be done.

The EFL—of course, my hon. Friend knows this—is a membership organisation, and therefore vested interests take hold on whether a club may be advantaged or disadvantaged by 3UP and, of course, all the connotations around that. The EFL and, I hope, its member clubs have heard this, and the fan voice is strong on this campaign. I say from this Dispatch Box that I hope the EFL hears that strength of feeling at its meetings in March.

My hon. Friend mentioned the regulator, and I am pleased that the Independent Football Regulator recently launched its consultation on the terms of reference for its state of the game report. I appreciate him saying that things need to move quickly, but this comes ahead of the report’s publication in 2027, which will be a huge milestone for the regulator. The report will provide unparallelled insight into the structural issues facing the game and the wider football ecosystem, informing the regulator’s approach and decision making. The debate around restructuring leagues and football has been there since time immemorial, and if we put four football fans in a room to debate football reconstruction, we would get eight different answers for how that should go. These are complex negotiations. There will be financial distribution, organisational and scheduling challenges across multiple leagues, and it is ultimately a matter for the EFL.

I hope I can spend a few minutes talking about the women’s game, which is hugely important in this context. As we strengthen the foundation of the men’s game, we are equally committed to the continued transformation of women and girls’ football. Edinburgh South FC in my constituency has 1,200 young people playing every single weekend, many of them girls. The number of girls who want to play is exploding, and I am incredibly proud of the progress we have seen.

As the major independent review led by Karen Carney rightly noted, we must work to raise the standards across every level of the game, including in non-league and grassroots football. Our investment is already delivering gold-standard provision through the Lionesses futures fund—I think England might have won a tournament somewhere. We provided £30 million to deliver state-of-the-art 3G pitches, dedicated female facilities, proper changing rooms and accessible toilets. We have ensured that this infrastructure is not just built but is accessible to all, with reserved peak-time slots and priority booking for women’s teams. These vital learnings are now hardwired into our main facilities programme.

The Government’s support for non-league football is multifaceted. It is about financial regulation, modern facilities and sustainability, but mostly it is about social opportunity. I want to thank the thousands of volunteers who keep our non-league clubs running, the tens of thousands of fans who go every week for their pie, their Bovril and their entertainment. They are the unsung heroes of our national game. This Government will continue to work with the Football Association, the Premier League, the EFL and the new independent regulator to ensure that our non-league clubs remain at the heart of our communities for years to come. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Science, Innovation and Technology

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Written Corrections

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to mention the impact on supply chains. In the west midlands, we recently had the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. That had a significant impact not just on that company, but on the supply chain, which has its roots right through the west midlands. That essential part of our economy was brought to a grinding halt by a cyber-attack. Will he confirm that this Bill will help prevent such instances from happening in the future?

[Ian Murray]

… I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill.

[Official Report, 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 174.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Digital Government and Data, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):

[Ian Murray]

… I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and certain other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill.

The following extract is from the Second Reading debate on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill on 6 January 2026.

[Kanishka Narayan]

With the exception of data centres, reportable incidents that affect operators of essential services would need to have affected the operation of significant network and information systems right across the entity, and to have a significant national security impact.

[Official Report, 6 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 227.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan):

Modern Digital Government: 2025-2030 Roadmap

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Written Statements

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

I have published “A roadmap for modern digital Government 2025-2030” on gov.uk. The roadmap follows on from the state of digital Government review and a blueprint for modern digital Government that were published earlier this year which set out how we will use technology to fundamentally improve and simplify the daily lives of the people in the UK. Our collective priorities are clear: to enable easier lives, faster growth, firmer foundations, smarter organisations, and higher productivity and efficiency. This roadmap now sets out our plan to 2030 to deliver those tangible benefits for every citizen and business in the UK, committing to the bold action we will take against the six-point plan for reform outlined in the blueprint:

Join up public sector services: we are creating a more seamless, secure and connected experience for people and businesses. This includes enhancing the gov.uk app to provide personalised and proactive services, launching the gov.uk wallet for convenient digital credentials and a national digital ID scheme that will simplify and secure access to services alongside gov.uk one login. Initiatives like CustomerFirst and GDS Local are accelerating system-wide improvements and fostering collaboration across central and local government. Key to all of this is driving digital inclusion for all.

Harness the power of Al for the public good: we are actively building and testing AI tools to boost public sector productivity and improve services, contributing to significant efficiency gains that translate into faster decision-making for citizens. This involves the rapid prototyping capabilities of incubator for AI, establishing an external responsible AI advisory panel, and accelerating AI adoption through the Prime Minister’s AI exemplars programme, which is already testing AI products in areas from job seeking to tax compliance.

Strengthen and extend our digital and data public infrastructure: we are building a secure and reliable digital public infrastructure. We are committed to embedding safety in its very foundations. This begins with gaining a comprehensive view of our digital estate, removing legacy technology, and providing common platforms and shared direction across Government. It involves enforcing “secure by design” principles across all Government systems. We will strengthen cyber defence through new more interventionist models to rigorously protect people’s data, as well as make our infrastructure resilient against evolving threats. Beyond our own systems, we are enhancing strategic supplier agreements to ensure supply chains are resilient by enforcing baseline security standards and raising broader awareness. Furthermore, we are creating new infrastructure like the national data library to unlock the value of public data for economic growth and improved services.

Elevate leadership, invest in talent: we are committed to making Government a leading digital career choice. This includes implementing a new digital pay framework, and equipping civil servants with essential digital, data, and AI skills through programmes like the AI accelerator and TechTrack apprenticeships, ensuring the public is served by the very best digital professionals.

Fund for outcomes, procure for growth and innovation: we are reforming how Government fund, buy and manage technology, working closer with industry to deliver the best outcomes for citizens. By shifting to agile, outcome-focused funding models and leveraging our buying power through the digital commercial centre of excellence, we will ensure public money delivers maximum value and fosters a more competitive and vibrant technology marketplace. Procurement will prioritise resilience through a diversity of suppliers. We will actively support sovereign capabilities in sensitive areas such as AI and leverage UK assets to guarantee secure and resilient connectivity. This coherent approach ensures that our spending not only delivers value but strengthens our national digital infrastructure and supports growth and innovation.

Commit to transparency, drive accountability: we are changing to be more open, accountable, and focused on what matters to the public. We are creating consistent ways to measure service performance, working in the open, and publishing clear information on how and why we are using algorithmic tools through the algorithmic transparency recording standard. This helps every citizen know how their Government are performing and why decisions affecting them are being made.

Work to deliver this plan is already well under way.

The gov.uk app was launched in July 2025 and has achieved over 200,000 downloads and trials for gov.uk chat have recently concluded to explore the use of conversational AI for helping users navigate complex Government services;

The first digital credential was added to gov.uk wallet providing almost 2 million veterans with a secure and convenient way to prove their status and access services from their phone;

As of October 2025, over 13.2 million people have proven their identity through gov.uk one login, and its identity verification app;

We completed a discovery phase for the “Get Britain Working” service transformation to explore how to help people find or keep a job while managing long-term health conditions, which has helped to inform the creation of a new unit that will drive this end-to-end service transformation approach across the public sector;

Our first cohort of 24 data scientists from across Government complete the AI accelerator programme and have upskilled into machine learning engineers;

Over 600 public sector organisations have signed up to our free vulnerability scanning service to help them identify cyber weaknesses:

We recently announced our plans for a digital ID scheme so that everyone in the UK can easily and securely prove their identity to access public and private services, welfare and other benefits.

We will now take this roadmap forward at pace, building on the momentum already in place. By working collaboratively across Government, with researchers, businesses, and most importantly, with the public, we will unlock the full potential of digital and AI to deliver transformational outcomes for citizens across the entire country. This roadmap will be iterative and we will provide annual updates on our progress against milestones and blueprint outcome metrics.

[HCWS1249]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of trends in the level of spending on gambling advertising.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

We monitor a wide range of evidence to aid our assessment of gambling advertising and its impacts, including spend data provided by the industry and independent sources. We will continue to keep our policies under review in this serious context. There is a Westminster Hall debate on gambling harms later today, where hon. Members will get the chance to unpack these issues in more detail.

[Alex Ballinger]

This week FIFA announced a four-year partnership so that gambling platforms can stream world cup games on UK websites for the first time. Football fans are already heavily exposed to gambling advertising, and the Government have confirmed that there is clear evidence linking gambling advertising to harm. As the Premier League has agreed to remove gambling adverts from the front of shirts this year, does the Minister share my concern that the livestreaming of world cup games on gambling sites is a step in the wrong direction and can perpetuate further gambling harm?

[Ian Murray]

There are two ways to answer that question. The first is with regard to exposure to the world cup itself, and I want as many world cup games as possible to be on free-to-air television. When Scotland qualified for the world cup, it was on the BBC and brought the whole nation together, which is what the world cup should do for every nation that has qualified.

Secondly, on exposure to gambling, we are committed to strengthening measures to protect those at risk, including the gambling levy. Twenty per cent of that £120 million will go towards making sure that we have the proper research to build on. I appreciate my hon. Friend’s raising this point. I will consider the issue with the Sport Minister, and I will write to my hon. Friend with an update in due course.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Sitting down to watch a football game with my young family the other day, my wife commented, “Are you watching football, or are you watching a gambling show?” She had a point. Last October, a match between Man City and Wolves had over 5,000 visible gambling ads during the game. Gambling destroys lives and is responsible for close to 500 suicides a year. What consideration is the Department giving to addressing this pressing and devastating issue?

[Ian Murray]

It is a pressing issue that has been recognised, particularly by the Premier League, which has banned shirt sponsorship from next season. A number of robust rules are already in place to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The Government are looking at this issue very seriously, and I hope the hon. Gentleman comes to the Westminster Hall debate this afternoon.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help protect the creative industries in the context of AI.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

On 15 December we published a progress statement on copyright and artificial intelligence, as required by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. By law, we have to publish an independent impact assessment before 18 March. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology recently held a round of successful technical working groups on copyright and AI, and I am engaging with the creative and tech industries to ensure that our copyright regime values and protects human creativity while unlocking innovation across our creative sector and the wider economy.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The Minister will know that big tech companies want to use songs, recordings and other creative work to train their AI models, without asking or paying the original creators. Does he agree with my union, the Musicians’ Union, that those working in our creative sector should be asked for consent to use their work, get credit for use of their work and be fairly compensated when their work is used in this way?

[Ian Murray]

This is one of the most serious issues we have to deal with in this space. As a joint Minister in DSIT and the DCMS, I know this is something we are looking at, and we are very aware of all the concerns raised by creatives. We want to support rights holders in licensing their work in the digital age and to allow AI developers to benefit from access to creative material. In the UK, that will require a landing zone for both industries, and engagement, such as technical working groups, will be key in finding a solution that works for both sides. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in both sectors to further develop that approach, and that is the commitment from both Secretaries of State.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

When it comes to AI, as with so many other things, this Government are all smoke and mirrors. In response to the Grok AI outrage this week, the Secretary of State for Science and Tech announced with a flourish that she would be banning intimate image abuse with immediate effect. In reality, this meant triggering legislation that had to be forced through by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge against the Government’s will and that received Royal Assent last summer. Imagine how many women could have had their trauma prevented if the Government had just got a grip. Every day, our creative industries are having their work scraped. Intellectual property is being stolen every day, and still the Government sit on their hands, promising the world and delivering nothing. When will we see the AI Bill promised in the last King’s Speech, and when is that legislation likely to be brought forward?

[Ian Murray]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), there will be an update to Parliament on 18 March, as provided for by the Data (Use and Access) Act. This is an incredibly serious issue, but what we really need to do is make sure that the Online Safety Act 2023 is completely implemented. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology made it very clear from the Dispatch Box this week that the Government will have an absolutely no-tolerance approach to what has been happening with AI and Grok. Ofcom must do its job. It must do it quickly, it must do it soon, and it must take the greatest possible action it can against the perpetrators of the disgusting and abhorrent ways in which AI is operating on some platforms.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help increase access to sports facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to help support co-operative live music venues.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

Co-operative live music venues have benefited from the Government’s community ownership fund, which enables communities to take ownership of valued local cultural assets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does to champion the arts and music in his constituency. Building on the community ownership fund, the new Pride in Place programme will support 244 neighbourhoods with up to £20 million each over the next 10 years, which can support local music venues, while our new music growth package of up to £30 million, which we will launch in the spring, will help to strengthen grassroots music infrastructure, including venues themselves.

[Patrick Hurley]

Southport does not need to apply to be the UK town of culture because we have a fantastic year of culture coming up this year anyway—Members should check out southport2026.com for more details. As part of building a legacy off our year of culture, I am meeting music industry professionals next week to discuss the live music scene. Grassroots music venues are vital to nurturing new talent, but too many venues in this country are closing because of soaring costs. Can the Minister outline whether music venues should have their own sector-specific support package so that we can protect live music for the future?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is correct: Southport is already a town of culture. He has been championing southport2026.com, which everyone should go and look at. In addition to the £30 million music growth package, the Government are encouraging the live music venue to go further to deliver widespread adoption of the voluntary £1 levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows in order to help to safeguard the future of grassroots music. I re-emphasise that we are encouraging the industry to go much further; we want as much take-up as possible and to see the levy in place for as many concerts as possible. We want the music industry to continue to drive progress with this, as all that money will go into grassroots live music.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Gambling Harms: Children and Young People

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. You are a good friend to us all.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) on securing this important debate. I thought his speech was great; it covered all bases in looking at where we are on gambling harms. He was absolutely right to point out that significant attention is paid to gambling harms, but little attention is paid to the effects that those harms have on children and young people. I am glad we have sorted some of that in this debate.

My heart goes out to Lesley. I hope she has been watching this, albeit through one eye, and we all wish her a speedy recovery. I also pay tribute to Rosie, who is in the Public Gallery. Speaking as a father to two children, losing a child is heartbreaking, but using the loss of a child as a catalyst for campaigning on this issue is completely heroic and much beyond the strength of many of us. I thank her for that.

Unlike alcohol addiction, gambling is an invisible addiction, and it is often hidden from family members and friends, as we have heard from hon. Members. We must ensure that there are safeguards in place, particularly for children and young people; otherwise, we risk a generational slip into gambling harms, as many Members have said. There has been massive innovation in the gambling sector, which is why this issue has been brought to the fore. Young people have certainly been much more exposed to risks than other groups. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about direct and indirect harms. I think we have to deal with that.

Let me canter through some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised, before dealing with those raised by other hon. Members. My hon. Friend spoke about loot boxes, which were mentioned by a number of Members. We have commissioned independent academic research to assess the effectiveness of the new industry-led measures to improve player protections with regards to loot boxes in video games. We have engaged with the relevant Government Departments and regulators to consider the next steps, which will be published alongside the academic research in due course later this year. Some 20% of the gambling levy is going into research; we need a lot more research into these areas to make sure that any other regulations or guardrails that we introduce are fit for purpose, as these issues are changing all the time.

My hon. Friend mentioned the impact of parental gambling on children and households. That is a key part of the impact that parents’ gambling has on children and young people. Statistics from the Gambling Commission’s young people and gambling survey, which many Members have referred to, show that nearly 30% of young people have seen a family member they live with gamble. We also note the findings that young people who consider themselves to be risk-takers were also more likely to have seen a family member gamble. The National Gambling Clinic offers support for people aged 13 to 18 in England who have experienced harm from gambling. It offers a family and friends service alongside that, which provides support to those impacted by someone else’s difficulties with gambling. Further to that, as I have already mentioned, 30% of funds from the statutory gambling levy—£120 million this year, in total—are being put towards prevention, some of which will subsequently be used to inform the Government’s children and young people’s strategy.

My hon. Friend quite rightly raised the issue of increased gambling activity among children and young people, and the stats on that have been read out a number of times already. We continue to monitor that issue, particularly in the sector of unregulated gambling, such as private bets between family and friends. We have all done it: we have been driving with the family, including the kids, in the car, and have had a little side bet on whether the next car that passes will be red or white, or something like that to pass the time. We need to be careful that what we do is not accidentally causing our families to slip into thinking that gambling is normalised, an issue that many people have already raised.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the Department of Health and Social Care and the fact that gambling is a health issue. I am aware that some Members of this House wish gambling to be considered a health issue for the Department of Health and Social Care—we heard that earlier from the Select Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), who is no longer in his place. We continue to work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, colleagues and other stakeholders beyond Government to ensure that the wide-ranging harms associated with gambling are thoroughly considered and are reflected in future policy. That is why we have set the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and NHS England, alongside the appropriate bodies in Scotland and Wales, the task of commissioning for the prevention and treatment strands of the levy respectively. Gambling harm is partly the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Care too.

The Government’s men’s health strategy was touched on by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. We have heard that gambling harm tends to be most prevalent in young boys, and the evidence points to that. Young men are more likely to gamble at higher levels, particularly with online casino-style betting. The Gambling Commission published research into the drivers behind that in December last year. What is clear is the need for further gambling education, and we are committed to working with relevant stakeholders and the prevention commissioner to explore the role of education in protecting children and young people from gambling-related harms.

On the assessment of voluntary advertising measures, all licensed gaming operators in the UK must adhere to the Gambling Commission’s licensing conditions and codes of practice, which require compliance with robust advertising codes enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority. The codes are regularly reviewed and updated, and they include a wide range of provisions designed to protect children and young people from harm. Those rules are further supplemented by a number of voluntary industry measures, such as the industry code for socially responsible advertising, and we continue to monitor the evidence base and to work with a number of stakeholders when considering the effectiveness of current regulations and gambling advertising. I am sure that the Gambling Commission has heard this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee debate we had last week.

I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I have heard him speak many times over the last couple of weeks, and he has not mentioned that Halesowen is the town of culture this year—he has missed another lobbying opportunity, but I put that on the record on his behalf. I thank him for welcoming our tax changes, including the £26 million from those tax changes that is being put straight into looking at and being more robust with the illegal market. I thank him for all he does with the APPG on gambling reform.

My hon. Friend welcomed the front-of-shirt ban; with that ban, I think the Premier League acknowledged the scale of the exposure problem, something that all hon. Members have mentioned and want to reflect on. He also raised the Betting and Gaming Council’s report; I am not avoiding the question, but it is for the council to decide whether it wants to publish that report. I am sure it will have heard both my remarks and his on whether it decides to do that.

I am surprised that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke in this debate—he is normally such a shy and retiring Member. He is of course right to reflect on the fact that the gambling regulations in Northern Ireland are different, but I can reassure him that gambling officials met with their Northern Irish counterparts just last month to discuss gambling harm. They want to learn from best practice in both organisations.

The hon. Member also raised the specialist providers for the treatment of gambling harm and the late Gordon Moody, as did the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I thank them all for the work that they do. The gambling levy of £120 million will help. The applications for it opened yesterday, and I encourage all hon. Member who have any contacts with those bodies to make sure that they are applying for those contracts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and many other hon. Members highlighted that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising—why? Because it works. Nobody spends money on advertising if it does not work. I enjoyed her saying that we are all from the late 1900s—I had not considered that before, but I certainly feel like it today. She also pushed us on what measures we can take.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) notes that young people have seen this as being normalised; that is something that we are all having to deal with. He mentioned the letter sent to the gambling industry last week, and the response that he got, highlighting how wrong he was. I gently suggest to the industry that that is not the way to respond; they should engage with the issues and, if there is an argument to be made, let us have that argument, rather than telling hon. Members that they are wrong when they raise significant issues on behalf of their constituents.

I pay tribute to Peter and Sadie Keogh after the tragedy they faced in their family, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for telling the personal story of his family. He asked about youth-specific gambling support: the National Gambling Clinic is an NHS service that provides free, confidential support for those aged between 13 and 18 experiencing gambling-related harm, and I would encourage any family member or anybody of that age to get in touch and engage with that service.

On gambling-related suicide, we all read the BBC story about Ollie Long this week, and many Members have referred to it. The Government recognise that the link between gambling and suicide is a sensitive area and a difficult one to research because of the linkages. It is very complex; I hope the 20% dedicated from the levy will help us with that research to build a much better picture of the harms and the direct associated areas. The Department of Health and Social Care also has a suicide prevention strategy; that is the health part of this, which is important for us to see.

I hope I have covered most of the issues that have been raised by hon. Members., I apologise to the shadow Minister about the letter sent to the Secretary of State on 6 November; we will chase that up and reply to the hon. Gentleman. I highlight the £120 million raised by the levy this year: the 30% that goes into prevention, the 30% that goes into treatment, the 20% that goes into research—I ask people please to engage with those distribution bodies—and the extra £26 million to tackle the illegal market. We all know the illegal market is a problem and I hope that money goes some way to dealing with some of those big issues.

To finish, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton) raised the proliferation of betting on the high street. We know that is a problem; we had a Backbench Business debate on it last week, where we discussed those particular harms. In the interests of time, I refer her to that debate so she can see the result. The Prime Minister did answer a Prime Minister’s question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), who has been leading the charge on this, and he is fully committed to making sure those cumulative impact assessments are part of the planning and licensing process. I hope that will help the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington in some way.

I hope I have answered all the issues that were raised in the debate. We will continue to have these debates as the months and years roll by. The gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, who is in the other place, who takes the lead on this, will have heard the debate and we will have regular meetings on the issues that come out of it. I hope that hon. Members continue to interact with the debate and continue the sterling work they have been doing.

High Street Gambling Reform

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to go forward, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing it. Many hon. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the harms of gambling. Although that is incredibly important in underpinning the debate, I will concentrate on what the motion says about licences and premises, and on what local authorities can do to deal with those kinds of issues.

I pay a huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East, because the way that she presented her speech and told real-life stories was really powerful. I join her in paying tribute to Jackie Olden for her campaign on behalf of her mother Wendy—my hon. Friend told a hugely powerful story about the impact of gambling on their family and the campaign that they have subsequently proceeded with—and to Charles and Liz Ritchie, who, after the death of their 24-year-old son Jack, started Gambling with Lives. The Minister for gambling, Baroness Twycross in the other place, met both Jackie and Liz in the autumn, and the Government will take forward some of those discussions. Next Thursday there is a gambling harms debate in Westminster Hall, and I encourage Members to bring some of the contributions that they have made today to that debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East mentioned a list of things that she would like to see going forward, and I hope to cover some of them, but I will start by mentioning a few of the other contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), in an intervention, talked about the 80:20 rule and the changes to the rule that were proposed in the gambling White Paper. The gambling Minister recognises the problems and wants to ensure that protections from harms are much more robust before any thoughts on changing the rule come forward. I hope that satisfies Members who are concerned about the 80:20 rule.

The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the Breakeven charity in her constituency, which I believe she is visiting tomorrow, and about the 2023 White Paper. We want to implement the recommendations in that White Paper. Obviously, it was the previous Government’s initiative, but the recommendations were pretty powerful. We want them to be implemented as quickly as possible, but we also want to see them bedded in before there is another review of gambling. She also talked about the gambling ombudsman, which will require primary legislation. We will bring forward those kinds of issues as and when we are able to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) talked about the 30 gambling premises across her constituency and the cumulative impact of them. I hope to come on to some of those cumulative impacts in my speech.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly talked about gambling harms. He should attend the debate next Thursday, if he is able to do so, and bring some of those real-life examples with him.

One high street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) has one of the highest concentrations of gambling establishments in the country. She demonstrated why more powers such as the cumulative impact assessments, which I will come on to talk about, will I hope help with such issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) rightly told us that problem gamblers are invisible, whereas those with other addictions are not. That highlights the problem that has to be dealt with, and the issues raised by the Health and Social Care Committee. I commend him and his Committee for what they have done to bring this issue into the public health domain.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) highlighted some successes that communities have had in limiting the number of gambling premises in his constituency. However, he is frustrated both about their lack of ability to do so, and about the premises that have been approved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about our manifesto commitment to tackle gambling harms, as well as about stake limits and the statutory levy to fund research, protection and treatments. I hope that the cumulative impact assessments, which I will talk about shortly, are able to help with those issues.

Generally, the Government are fully committed to giving communities across the country stronger tools to shape their local areas, and that is what this debate has been about. We have passed the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which will deliver growth and housing, and strengthen local planning through the implementation of spatial development strategies nationwide. That is backed up by the £5 billion Pride in Place funding for neighbourhoods.

We are also widening and deepening local devolution through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and delivering a suite of tools to support communities in improving their high streets. Those include high street rental auctions, which will give councils the power to auction the lease of long-term vacant premises, a community right to buy for communities to take ownership of local buildings that they value, and streamlining of the compulsory purchase process to help local authorities regenerate our high streets.

As many hon. Members will be aware, we intend to provide additional powers to local communities on the location and density of land-based gambling premises. Today, I will focus on the Government’s approach to land-based gambling, and on the powers that local authorities have and will be given in relation to gambling premises. All of us want to see a responsible gambling industry, which brings social and economic value to communities across the country. My own mum worked in a bookmakers. In particular, we are clear about the value of the land-based gambling sector; it was certainly valuable to her when she worked there.

The sector makes an important contribution to our national life, and we have heard about events such as the grand national. I know the importance of seaside arcades and bingo halls to communities across the country, and the joy that they bring to many millions of people. The reforms to gambling duties, including the abolition of bingo duty, announced in the autumn Budget—those duties were mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson)—reflect the contributions of such venues to our economy and our local communities.

In parallel, the Government recognise that harmful gambling can wreck the lives of individuals. We know that families and communities can be wrecked, which is why we are working with the land-based sector, the Gambling Commission and others to ensure that player-protection measures are effective and that people can gamble safely, while seeking effective help when that is needed.

Local authorities are essential to efforts to mitigate this risk, so let me run through what they can do; they play a crucial role in the regulation of gambling up and down the country. They have a wide range of powers—a suite of powers and tools—in relation to gambling premises. Licences are subject to guidance issued by the Gambling Commission and its licensing objectives. Licensing authorities are given broad powers to set conditions that require licensed gambling to be carried out in a way that is consistent with keeping gambling fair and open. During the licensing process, licensing authorities can attach conditions to premises licences to which operators must adhere.

All local authorities should publish a statement of principles on gambling licensing outlining local issues, priorities and risks. In those statements, licensing authorities can identify high-risk areas and specify local risks. Operators must take steps to mitigate those risks in their applications. I fully acknowledge and understand what hon. Members have said about the “aim to permit” principle, but we do not believe that the premises licence application process is a foregone conclusion. The “aim to permit” principle is subject to strict conditions, including that the licence application is consistent with the local authority’s gambling policy statement. It is worth saying that “aim to permit” is a licensing issue, not a planning issue. Once a licence is granted, licensing authorities have extensive powers of monitoring and enforcement, and I would encourage them to use them. Planning permission is always required to create gambling premises or for a change of use to gambling premises such as a bingo hall or a betting shop, and the planning system has to be used.

Given the limited time I have left, let me move on to the cumulative impact assessments, because I think they are at the heart of this issue.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I do not know if I have time, but I will give way.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that freedom of responsibility, when it comes to gambling, is exactly where we should be, rather than restricting people from taking part in activities such as greyhound racing at Romford greyhound stadium in my constituency? It is a part of our local culture and it is very important that we do not allow such places to close down because of severe restrictions from Government.

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate the intervention, but that is a completely different story to the subject of this debate. Nobody is denying that betting on the grand national or on greyhound racing, as tens of millions of people do every week, is safe and secure, but the Government have to regulate industries such as gambling and have always done so. The regulations are in place to keep people safe, but they also ensure that people who enjoy gambling can be assured that the system they are using is safe.

Let me talk very briefly about cumulative impact assessments, which the Prime Minister committed to directly at Prime Minister’s questions in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The Government want local authorities to feel empowered to make data-driven decisions that are in their communities’ best interests. We want them to feel able to curate healthy and vibrant spaces that reflect the needs of their local communities. As part of our Pride in Place strategy to strengthen local authority influence over the location and density of outlets, we have confirmed that we will introduce cumulative impact assessments when parliamentary time allows. Cumulative impact assessments will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling harms. We have heard a lot about where those gambling harms are.

It is really important that “aim to permit” applies also to licensing applications. Planning policies, including local plans, offer councils additional tools to influence the number of gambling premises in their areas. With local plans, the “aim to permit”, the cumulative impact assessments and the ability to enforce and set strict conditions, local authorities have a suite of powers to prevent if they so wish and make their high streets the way they want them to be.

In conclusion, the Government want to ensure that local authorities have the tools and resources they need to shape their local areas in line with their community’s best interests. That is a Government commitment and a prime ministerial commitment from the Dispatch Box. Our plans to introduce cumulative impact assessments are an important part of that commitment, and we will bring them forward as soon as a legislative vehicle is available.

UK Town of Culture

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

As always, Ms Furniss, it is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing what I think has been a very enjoyable debate. It has not just been a debate about the town of culture; I think it has actually been the largest lobbying exercise from MPs that we have seen in this Parliament. It has been a geographical trip through everyone’s wonderful constituencies. We heard from my hon. Friend about everything from yarn bombers to mosh pitters, in the form of Led Zeppelin and Robert Plant. Of course, he has invited the President of the United States to come and visit his wonderful green lands—I am glad about his intonation on that.

I pay tribute to the Halesowen Abbey Trust for its work on the Leasowes walled garden, which demonstrates the civic pride that my hon. Friend talked about in his opening speech. As he mentioned, culture is a shared language. Whether we are talking about yarn bombers, heavy metal, mosh pitters or some of the wonderful heritage buildings around the country that we have heard about, one thing is for sure: we all have that shared cultural heritage that we want to preserve. It is not just about celebrating the past; it is about shaping the future, as many of my hon. Friends and others have said.

I also pay tribute to Colin Brookes of Halesowen Town FC, and pass on our sympathies to his family. Those kinds of individuals drive local projects, institutions and organisations. Without those personal commitments from people like Colin Brookes, none of these institutions would continue to exist; we rely on local people’s passions for that. It was not just a great speech from my hon. Friend; it was also a superb oral application form, which I hope Hansard will just pop, verbatim, straight into his application form for the town of culture competition.

This scheme will be delivered across the UK and in collaboration with devolved Governments. As we have already heard, the UK town of culture competition builds on the city of culture model for cultural placemaking, which was first launched in 2009, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), said, and is now in its fifth iteration. Derry/Londonderry, Hull, Coventry and now Bradford have benefited from the lasting and transformative impacts, including more than £1 billion of additional investment added to local economies of past host cities, increasing jobs, tourism and that local cultural pride.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned, Bradford 2025 has delivered a wealth of significant benefits, not just for Bradford itself but for the wider region. The highlights of its time as UK city of culture include delivering more than 5,000 events across all 30 district wards and attracting more than 3 million people with its world-class cultural programme. It commissioned and involved more than 650 local artists, involved 87,000 individuals in participatory projects, 2,700 volunteers—the Colin Brookes of this world—with more than 5,500 people benefiting from training, and engaging more than 160 schools and educational settings.

The direct positive impacts on people’s lives in the local community are clear, as we have heard. More than 80% of people surveyed said that Bradford 2025 had a positive impact on their wellbeing; it made eight in 10 residents feel proud of where they live; and more than 70% of residents felt more connected to the people in their communities. I therefore echo the congratulations of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley to the Bradford city of culture directors, Shanaz Gulzar and Dan Bates. I thank them for all that they did, and thank everyone who participated in that.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his congratulations. Bradford council has already committed about £13 million over the next five years to the legacy, but much more is needed for capital projects, such as the Bingley town hall creative workshop. Would the Minister agree to meet me and representatives of Bradford council to discuss how we secure the legacy of Bradford 2025?

[Ian Murray]

I am very happy to take up that invitation to meet with my hon. Friend and representatives to see how that legacy is lasting, because the legacy is actually the most important thing from the city of culture scheme. I hope there are also huge legacies from the town of culture scheme, not just for the successful town but for all the applicants. It may give another boost to all of that cultural heritage and cultural futures in those areas.

When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launched the UK town of culture, she said that

“every place has a story worth telling”,

and we have heard those stories this afternoon. I have been struck by the depth of what has resonated from hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said this is about telling the story of the past and today, but also about shaping the future. Indeed it is.

We have heard lots of wonderful stories. I will run through some of those, rather than going through what the town of culture will be about, because everyone seems to be reflecting. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) dropped a bombshell, and told us that he tries to get Strangford into every debate—who knew? He is a great champion of Strangford. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the history of opening up the arts to everyone —that is what the town of culture is about; it has to be about art for all—and reminded us not to forget about rural areas and those on the periphery, which I think is really important and what this is all about.

Turning to the town of Amesbury: we had heavy metal from Stonehenge, Romans and Saxons and Spın̈al Tap in a four-minute speech; who would have known we would have got there today? My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) talked about “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which I thought was more Greek than Stoke-on-Trent. She talked about the art, music, charities and heritage, and the Longton carnival in the Stoke-on-Trent area.

We heard from the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) about the £60,000 of funding to help develop the approach for shortlisted candidates. It is critical that there is that support to ensure that we develop some of those. There is also £60,000 available for longlisted city of culture candidates so that they can develop their proposals. I join in congratulating Wimborne as Dorset’s town of culture 2026. I would love to visit if I possibly can, but only if I get to see “Legally Blonde: The Musical”—I will maybe go down there to do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) talked about the Prescot Cables FC, and the story he tells is a story from many places across the country. Who would have thought that William Shakespeare, fleeing the plague, would have turned a bus stop into a playhouse for young people being trained, and for cultural heritage and outreach to schools? One of the key things he said, which drives the town of culture and the city of culture—indeed, it drives the Secretary of State and me in terms of culture across the country—is that change can happen. A big catalyst for change is arts and culture; it is a great advert. My hon. Friend also gave a great advert for Southport’s year of culture in 2026. I cannot remember the website, but I am sure it is in Hansard for everyone to refer back to.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) talked about the whole competition empowering local people, and Chesham being a coiled spring champing at the bit to get their application in. Who knew that Bishop Auckland was the home of the calendar, and therefore the home of time itself? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) made a reference to Laurel and Hardy, and the “Land of Hope and Glory”, which I think is a great combination to have there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) spoke about turning the Reading Gaol into a cultural and arts centre. I think that is absolutely fantastic, bringing arts and history to life. And who knows? The car park might be a famous royal cemetery. Rather than sending the town of culture prize pot to Reading, maybe we should just send a couple of spades and a digger, and we could do it on that basis.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley went through all those issues, and re-emphasised the fact that Bradford, as the city of culture, had something for everyone. Crewe and Nantwich is the home of the Cheshire Archives. It is absolutely fantastic to have those there, but the key thing is arts and culture being a catalyst for town centre regeneration. I think that is key. We tend to forget that arts and culture can be that catalyst: they can bring people together and regenerate footfall in our city centres.

Finally, we heard how hotly contested this competition will be in North West Leicestershire. I am not going to look at my officials when I say this—I do not know who will actually go through the application forms, but how they are going to determine who will win is quite extraordinary, given what we have heard this afternoon and the applications. I would say, to everyone who has spoken this afternoon and to anyone who is interested in the competition, to apply. There is such a rich heritage of culture and arts in every single corner of the country—north, south, east and west. We should celebrate that, and the kinds of celebrations we could have from that can be through this competition. The competition will not just be about winning, although I am sure that all Members present today will want their own town to win; just taking part in the competition will be a big celebration of arts and culture.

I will respond to the specific question by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham about the timeline for the competition. For now, I can merely say that we will launch the competition very shortly. Of course the first town of culture will be in 2028, so the timeline, as Members can see for themselves, is relatively short. Consequently, we will launch the competition as soon as we possibly can.

Each place has a unique story. However, there is also a shared conviction that through culture and creative industries we can share the stories of towns, and celebrate the contribution of towns to our national story. That is why the town of culture award is so important. I thought that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), was slightly curmudgeonly when he asked if we need a town of culture competition; I think he has heard today why we need it. Even if it is just an opportunity for local people, local arts and culture organisations and local MPs to talk about and champion their local area, that in itself is something we should champion.

Our vision for the UK town of culture competition is that the public know we see and value the contribution that towns make to our national story, and that there are benefits for all those who are able to tell their own story. At the end of the competition, a cultural programme will be delivered that draws on the best of art, heritage and creative industries, underpinned by compelling local stories that will be shaped by local people, delivered through local partnership, and designed to leave a lasting legacy through strong cultural infrastructure, increased participation in culture and the creative industries, and a renewed sense of local pride. Indeed, we know that that is what the award does. One of the key things that the Secretary of State and I are very keen to see happen is the bursting of the bubble between there being talent everywhere and opportunity not everywhere. That is something we want to build upon.

This has been a tremendously enjoyable debate and I look forward to all the applications coming in. I do not look forward to having to assess the applications, but I encourage people to get them in, because we know that our national story is not written by one city or one institution. It is not written by one town or one organisation. It is written in the places across the United Kingdom and shaped by the generations of people who have lived, worked, created and contributed there. The UK town of culture competition is an invitation to celebrate that story and invest in it, to ensure that in the future it continues to be told with creativity, confidence and pride.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Ballinger to wind up quickly, because we expect a vote at 4 pm.

Government Cyber Action Plan

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing the Government cyber action plan, which sets out how we will transform cyber-security and resilience across Government and the public sector.

Public incidents demonstrate the devastating real-world consequences of inadequate cyber resilience. The recent incident affecting the Legal Aid Agency compromised personal data and impacted the organisation’s ability to digitally process legal aid applications and bills.

Similarly, the attack on Synnovis—a supplier of pathology services to the NHS—caused delays to over 11,000 outpatient and elective procedure appointments and, tragically, contributed to the death of a patient.

This reality underscores the fact that cyber-security is not a luxury; it is a fundamental component of business continuity, and all organisations should take steps to defend themselves.

Digitisation offers substantial opportunities to transform lives, deliver better public services, and drive economic growth and digital government. By investing in secure and resilient foundations, we do more than protect and transform public services; we drive innovation and growth within the UK’s cyber-security sector.

This Government have taken important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risk across Government and the public sector. The Government Cyber Co-ordination Centre, also known as GC3, enables us to respond as one Government to cyber incidents, threats and vulnerabilities. Our secure-by-design approach enables us to “fix forward”, ensuring future digital services are designed to achieve cyber-security resilience outcomes. GovAssure, our cyber assurance process now entering its third year of operations, offers an unprecedented picture of current resilience levels and the fundamental blockers to progress.

However, the evidence is clear: we must do far more to address the persistent threat. We must move from a model where individual organisations act alone to one where the Government truly defend as one.

Today’s Government cyber action plan sets out a radically new model for how Government will operate differently to deliver this necessary transformation. It is backed by investment of over £210 million, led by the Government cyber unit within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The unit is taking decisive action to rapidly address the recommendations from both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee by holding Departments to account for their cyber-security and resilience risks, as well as providing them with more direct support and services, and co-ordinating response to fast-moving incidents.

[HCWS1221]

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Ian Murray 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.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and it is great to see him in his post. On economic growth, how has he sought in the Bill to balance the absolute need for a regulatory framework that businesses can have confidence in alongside the ability to attract continued investment, and to ensure that we do not end up with an over-regulatory framework that stifles investment? How did he find that balance?

[Ian Murray]

The Bill builds on the 2018 regulations, which were a hangover from the EU when we adopted them in this country. The Bill expands on those. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) just suggested, this is about economic growth as well as protecting our systems, so we have to find a balance between ensuring that our regulators have the powers and tools to regulate properly and giving businesses and our public services the confidence to use digital technology knowing that we have the most secure cyber-security in Europe, if not the world. We are very good at this stuff, and that is the balance to be sought. This Bill is about economic growth rather than about the over-regulation of businesses. I do not say this flippantly, but cyber-security is one of those areas where if everything is working, nobody notices, but when it is not working, suddenly everyone notices and it is everyone’s problem. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and extending the scope of the powers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for what he is saying and bringing forward. There is much in the Bill that we should encourage. I know that he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland is home to 130 cyber-security companies with some 2,750 employees. It is therefore essential that this legislation protects those jobs and enhances the capacity for more. Does he believe that the Bill both protects us and provides the opportunity for growth in Northern Ireland and, indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Ian Murray]

Indeed it does. It is one of a number of provisions that the Government are bringing forward to create growth across the country, not just in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State’s passion is to make sure that those jobs are everywhere, right across the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland. The Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), has been in Belfast recently discussing this legislation and wider cyber-security issues with the industry in Northern Ireland, so I can assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that that is indeed the case.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

Hackney council was the subject of a major cyber-attack in 2020. It did a good job, though it was very slow because of the nature of the challenge of getting things back up and running. The Bill is therefore very welcome but, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), there are challenges for some of the smaller companies. I represent Shoreditch, which has many tech companies that need to maintain a standard on cyber-security but are small. How is the Minister going to balance the regulation for those smaller companies to ensure that they can keep abreast of things but are not so dampened down that they cannot progress and grow?

[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.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

We support this Bill and its efforts to tackle cyber-security, but it does not address the mass unauthorised scraping of trusted news content by generative AI systems. That content, as the Minister knows, is often taken without consent or compensation. As the Bill progresses, will he be prepared to look at some measures—maybe something like a bot register where people have to declare their intent when it comes to this type of activity? Will the Government look at this seriously so that news can be protected in this new environment?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in the way in which he uses interventions on pieces of legislation. I know AI copyright is close to his heart as a former, or perhaps current, professional musician and, indeed, one of the key musicians in MP4—let’s not push that to a Division! AI copyright is, of course, a key issue that the Government are looking at. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely together on this issue. I think the legislation means that there has to be a report to Parliament in March—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be very interested in that. We are bringing together the industry and tech companies to try to find a way through that particular issue. We know that it is a huge issue. It is not in the scope of this Bill, which has been kept very tight to deal with these specific and serious cyber-security issues.

As we know, the first duty of Government is to keep people safe. The question is how precisely the Bill will achieve that goal. The answer is simple. The UK’s main cyber-rules—the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, or the NIS regime—were first introduced seven years ago and have not been updated since. Those rules require operators of essential services such as energy, water and hospitals, as well as some digital service providers such as online search engines, to take steps to protect the services they provide and the data they hold from cyber-threats.

As Members might expect, a lot has changed in the cyber-landscape in the past eight years. We have had the rise of AI, which cyber-criminals are using to their advantage. Data centres have become a firm fixture of modern life, and we want to see more of them. Since the rules were introduced, criminals tactics have evolved to exploit loopholes in the regulations, as they did in the attack on the NHS supplier that I mentioned, which revealed how hackers can target third parties, such as IT companies, or supply chains as a back-door way to bringing down a wider system. As always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is right to mention the impact on supply chains. In the west midlands, we recently had the cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover. That had a significant impact not just on that company, but on the supply chain, which has its roots right through the west midlands. That essential part of our economy was brought to a grinding halt by a cyber-attack. Will he confirm that this Bill will help prevent such instances from happening in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for all he did on the issues facing Jaguar Land Rover. I know that the matter is close to his heart and, indeed, it was a really big issue across the country, showing how a cyber-attack can affect not just one company, but has a ripple effect throughout the economy. Of course, the Government stepped in to unlock a £1.5 billion bolster to Jaguar Land Rover’s cash reserves to help it through that problem.

I should say to my hon. Friend, and I will come to it later, that Jaguar Land Rover and other private organisations are not in the scope of this Bill. The reason is that individual private companies should take their own cyber-security seriously and ensure that the risks of such incidents and threats are minimised as much as possible. The Bill widens the scope of the existing regulations, which do not include that, but of course the Government are working closely with Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and other high-profile cases, because we know the impact they can have on our economy. Indeed, had the Government not stepped in and resolved that issue, the impact on Jaguar Land Rover, and the tens of thousands of employees at the plants and in the supply chain, would have been catastrophic and is not worth thinking about. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.

As I said, as always, the story is one of technology and cyber-threats moving faster than policymakers can possibly keep up with, but today we are fixing that. The first change in the Bill is to widen the scope of the 2018 regulations. To keep up with the changes of the past eight years, we are adding a few new things to that list, starting with large-load controllers. That includes any organisation that manages a significant flow of electricity to or from a smart appliance. It might be a company that supports electric car charging, for example. Bringing these entities into scope will safeguard our power supply and give consumers confidence in using energy-smart appliances, all of which are critical as we advance towards our clean power 2030 mission and net zero.

The second change is that we are adding large data centres in recognition of their growing importance to our day-to-day lives and to the economy. These are vast digital warehouses for the United Kingdom, home to servers that host everything from patient records to their bank details. This is the data that underpins modern life and all our lives and communities, and it must be protected.

We are expanding the scope of the regulations to include managed service providers as well. Those are organisations that provide ongoing functions, such as an IT help desk, to an outside client. Their access makes them an attractive target for cyber-attacks as criminals can find one weak spot and bring countless organisations down. For example, in 2014, an attack on a service provider for the Ministry of Defence compromised the personal data of around 270,000 people—military personnel, reservists and veterans. As organisations rely more and more on outsourced tech, we have to close this gap. In fact, weaknesses in the supply chain have become such a risk that we will go even further by allowing regulators to designate certain organisations as critical suppliers. That includes certain suppliers to essential services that could have a significant impact on the economy or society as a whole—for example, key suppliers to water companies, grid operators or air traffic control. These critical suppliers will be subject to cyber-security duties, which we will set out in secondary legislation.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Last year, the Treasury Committee wrote to the top 10 banks in the UK because there had been a number of outages. There was no suggestion that cyber-security attacks were involved in most cases. A trend in the responses was that third-party software providers are often the source of the issue. What is the Minister’s thinking about how to involve the banking sector in the scope of the Bill?

[Ian Murray]

The banking sector is obviously in the regulators’ scope for cyber-security, and there have been a number of outages, as my hon. Friend mentions. The general principle is that cyber-attacks no longer come in through the front door, but through third parties and suppliers. We have seen that, for example, in the recent incidents at Heathrow and in cloud outages with Amazon Web Services and other such companies. They are covered by their own regulations. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) about Jaguar Land Rover, those companies will not be in the scope of the Bill, but we hope that the financial services sector, which is a leader in cyber-security for a whole host of fairly obvious reasons, will take that forward.

The recent attacks on British icons such as Marks & Spencer and Jaguar Land Rover will loom large in people’s minds. Many Members across the Chamber have already mentioned them. Supply chains were thrown into chaos, with small businesses paying the price, which clearly shows the ripple effect across the economy—on other businesses, smaller businesses and patients, such as in the public service examples mentioned earlier—when one part of the system is attacked.

We are clear that all businesses—that covers financial services, Jaguar Land Rover, Marks & Spencer and others—must take immediate steps to protect themselves. That is why, in October, members of the Cabinet wrote to the FTSE 350 companies urging them to strengthen their defences by doing three things: first, to make cyber risk a board priority; secondly, to require suppliers to have a cyber essentials certificate; and thirdly to sign up to the early warning service. That was followed by a similar letter to entrepreneurs and small businesses in November with bespoke advice for smaller teams. We know that those actions work. Organisations with cyber essentials are 92% less likely to claim on cyber insurance than those that do not. Businesses know best how to protect themselves; we are not here to regulate for the sake of regulating.

Government are taking action too. As I announced this morning, the Government cyber action plan sets a radically new model for how Government will strengthen their cyber-resilience and is backed by over £210 million of investment. Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. That is why the public sector and the Government are not included in the scope of the Bill. The Government should not need to legislate for themselves; we should just get on with making sure that we are leading the charge and that the cyber action plan strengthens the Government’s cyber-resilience. [Interruption.] I do not know if that was an attempt at an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, but I am happy to take it.

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s comments about the obligation on the public sector. However, I caution him that, in my experience, cyber-security is one of those things that Ministers talk about, but then other priorities overtake it. The advantage of legislative requirements is that they force Ministers to think about it. I urge the Minister to look at that point again as the Bill passes through Parliament. There is a case for putting more stringent requirements on the public sector in order to force Ministers’ minds on the point.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman would have had some involvement in this when he was in government; indeed, the 2018 regulations came from the previous Government. We are all trying to make sure that we are catching up with the technology as quickly as it moves. He makes a very interesting point that I am very conscious of and happy to take away. We are determined to deliver the cyber-security action plan, which is backed by £210 million.

The actions that the previous Government took did not come to fruition in terms of their 2030 target, which is why we have refreshed the action plan and brought it forward with some significant cash. It is important for Ministers to take that forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will hold us to account to ensure that we are fulfilling that promise in the cyber-security action plan. Public services, and indeed central Government, must take the leading role to show businesses that the approach to take is to ensure that all our systems are as secure as possible, not just on economic grounds, but for the people that we all seek to represent.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the excellent points he is making on the importance of cyber-security and the cyber-security action plan. Can he say a little bit about how the success of the cyber-security action plan will be measured, monitored and communicated to the House? He is probably aware that only 33,000 cyber essentials certificates were issued in 2024, for example, so an increased take-up of cyber essentials and the guidance in the action plan are essential.

[Ian Murray]

There are some key dates to monitor progress in the action plan itself. I wrote to my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, this morning on the publication of the action plan to lay out some of those issues; the letter will be landing soon. I would be happy to discuss that in front of the Committee in more detail. I hope that the Committee, and indeed the Opposition and our own Labour Members, hold us to account for delivering on this, because it is fundamentally important to Government, whether it be digitisation, modernising Government or winning the case with the public about why digitisation is so important and why Government should be as secure as possible and lead the charge on that across the whole economy. I hope that we and the Committee can take that forward in the weeks and months ahead.

As I said, the Government cyber action plan launched this morning is backed by over £210 million of investment and Government Departments will be held to standards equivalent to those set out in the Bill. I hope that that partially answers the question from my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. Although the focus of the Bill is on essential services, it will also indirectly help businesses, including those damaged by the recent attacks, and Government. Almost all organisations today rely on data centres, outsourced IT or some kind of external supplier. By extending the Bill’s oversight, we are preventing attacks that could, in theory, reach thousands of organisations.

The Bill also gives new powers to regulators responsible for enforcing the NIS framework. Effective compliance is crucial to the success of any regime. These reforms could be world-leading on paper, but without proper enforcement they are meaningless.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

We have talked about the regulators having new powers to designate critical national infrastructure in regard to cyber-security threats, but who actually has accountability? The Bill refers to

“regulations made by the Secretary of State.”

Which Secretary of State is that, given that this is a cross-departmental and cross-Government approach?

[Ian Murray]

Cyber-security is the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, but the Cabinet Office has a clear resilience issue as well, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), who was in the Cabinet Office previously. The DSIT Secretary of State will make those regulations, but a plethora of regulators are involved in this process—energy, water and data centres all have different regulators. The regulators that regulate those sectors are being empowered through the expanded number of sectors being brought into the legislation to take the responsibility.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the point about regulators, the industry has issued a brief, which points out, quite sensibly, that these regulators are going to have a lot of extra duties to perform and they will therefore need extra resources to be able to perform those duties, but the extra resources they require will only be unlocked when the Bill has passed. Is there not a danger of a transition period where duties will be laid on regulators to fulfil their role before they have the resources to carry it out?

[Ian Murray]

We have to pass the legislation first. It may be amended during its passage through both Houses. Therefore, the regulators will not know what they are regulating until the Bill has passed. However, as I mentioned at the start of my contribution, we have been working with regulators, businesses, organisations and cyber-security experts in the run-up to producing the Bill to make sure that it is in the right place—that it is proportionate on businesses and regulators—and that it is effective, which is the most important thing. I am sure that we will have debates on those kinds of issues as we go through Committee and on to Third Reading, but I very much acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said.

The Bill will strengthen the powers of the NIS regulators, ranging from Ofgem to the Civil Aviation Authority, which work together to uphold the UK’s cyber rules across those different sectors—I may have taken the previous intervention 10 seconds too early! We are raising the maximum fine that they can impose, for example, while simplifying the penalty bands to make them clearer. The key driving force for this measure is not to punish rulebreakers or raise revenue, but to incentivise firms to be vigilant. Our goal is 100% compliance and zero fines.

We will also ask regulated organisations to change the way they report attacks and expand both the types of instance they have to report and the timeframe in which they have to report them. This is a small but crucial change. Under the current rules, regulators get notified about a breach only once it has already caused significant disruption—when traffic lights have failed or the heating has shut off. The system does not include cases with the potential to cause a crisis much later, like a hospital’s computer system quietly being spied on as hackers wait for their moment to strike. Under the Bill, if an organisation is within scope, it will have to tell its regulator and the National Cyber Security Centre about these types of breaches within 24 hours and provide a full report within three days. Pace and speed are of the essence. This will not only give us better information, but help agencies to warn others, should they need to, before they become the next targets.

The Bill will also allow the Government to set clear and consistent outcomes for regulations to work towards. One of the virtues of having a regime enforced by different agencies is that each has sector-specific expertise—Ofgem understands the complex digital systems that underpin the national grid, and the Civil Aviation Authority knows the precise threats to air traffic control, for example—but that approach has sometimes led to inconsistencies in how the regime is applied. Some bodies interpret the rules differently from others. The Bill aims to fix that with a single set of objectives issued by central Government and applied across the board. That will send the message that no sector is an easy target in the UK.

We will also improve the way in which regulators, intelligence agencies and law enforcement share information with each other by providing greater clarity on what regulators can share and receive. It is important that regulators have the resources to do their job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. The Bill will also give them new powers to cover the full costs associated with their regulatory duties. To ensure transparency, regulators will consult on how fees are calculated and publish a statement each year to show how the funds are being used. Together, the measures add up to a much more consistent and effective regime with better reporting and much clearer guidance for all involved.

The Bill ensures that the UK’s cyber-security regime is not only fit for today but flexible enough to head off future threats as well. I have mentioned a few things that have changed in the past eight years—shifts in technology and the nature of cyber-attacks, artificial intelligence, data centres and the economy—but one of the biggest changes was, of course, Brexit. Since our exit from the European Union in January 2020, we have been unable to amend the NIS regulations without primary legislation, because the rules were originally part of European Union law. That has slowed the process and made it difficult for us to keep pace with new emerging threats and technology. Meanwhile, Brussels is pressing ahead with NIS2—its forward-looking update—while we lag behind.

That procedural quirk has left essential UK services more exposed, which perhaps tells us something about why the UK has such appalling figures compared with some of our EU counterparts, as hackers and cyber criminals exploit gaps in our dated laws. That is an unacceptable risk, so the Bill includes new powers for the Government to update the NIS regime via secondary legislation, to make it quicker and more agile for dealing with evolving technologies—we might need to respond quickly to a new type of cyber-threat, for example. That is not in order to override Parliament; in almost all cases, the Government will still be required to consult on any changes, and Parliament will have the final say on any legislation made under the power. However, delegated powers are essential for keeping us as responsive as possible. When national security is on the line, we need the ability to act fast and decisively.

In fact, in extreme cases some threats emerge so rapidly that even secondary legislation is too slow; if an ally were to be invaded by a hostile state, for example, the cyber risk to the UK would suddenly escalate. The Government will therefore also be given powers to direct regulators or regulated entities where national security is threatened—to issue specific cyber-security guidance in a crisis, for example. Those powers are intended as a last resort to protect our national security, and safeguards will go into the Bill to ensure that they are used accordingly.

The UK’s cyber sector is the third largest in the world, as we heard from our friend from Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It achieves double-digit growth year on year. We have fast-growing clusters of expertise in Cheltenham and Manchester. This legislation will supercharge that success, doubling down on one of our nation’s greatest assets. At its core, the Bill is about protecting the essential services that we all rely on, so that the lights always stay switched on, clean water always runs in our taps, and hospitals are always safe and secure. Those are the real life community issues that we and our constituents all encounter every single day.

This is more than a technical upgrade; it is a bold commitment from the Government to protect one of our biggest economic strengths and keep the UK safe in a rapidly evolving digital world. Together, we are working towards a future in which security is not a hope but a guarantee. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

As my right hon. Friend is aware, local government is outside of the scope of the Bill, but it is a very juicy target—much of the public sector remains a very juicy target. In acknowledgment of that, the Government whipped out a strategy very quickly this morning that is meant to give us assurances about the public sector’s cyber-resilience. I am not sure that that strategy will provide much reassurance, which is why it is important to understand that this Bill can only be one part of a much wider arsenal to tighten gaps where they exist, in both the private and public sectors.

[Ian Murray]

It is worth clarifying for the House that we brought forward the Government cyber-security strategy this morning because the 2022 consultation undertaken by the previous Conservative Government was not acted upon. This Government are acting on those threats, bringing forward a plan that we will subsequently see through, and I think the hon. Lady should acknowledge that.

[Julia Lopez]

I welcome the strategy, but I have not yet had a chance to have a good look at it, because the Government always seem to publish these sorts of documents right at the last minute. The only way to get any information out of this Government is to apply some pressure in this House, and then, remarkably, things come flying out of the cupboard.

I will be very interested to see what the strategy looks like and whether it is up to the challenge we now face. The problems and risks of cyber have increased markedly since we were in Government because of the advent of AI technology—that technology is changing the picture very rapidly, just as the defence picture is changing very rapidly. My concern is that this Government are not taking seriously enough the various defence and security challenges that this House faces; they are prioritising spending on welfare payments, union payments and all manner of other things. It is one thing to get a strategy out of the door; it is another to put in place the measures that will implement that strategy. Basically, all we have seen over the past 18 months is strategy documents, without a great deal of delivery. That is one of the reasons why the Government are so rapidly losing public confidence.

In conclusion, we support this cyber Bill in principle—the threat is real and growing, and it demands action. However, it is only a tool, not a cure-all. A Government who are trying to close down gaps in one place while wilfully opening up huge new risks in a different corner are being negligent in their approach. Furthermore, if this legislation is to command confidence, it must be practical, proportionate and genuinely effective. Without meaningful improvements, the Bill risks placing new burdens on business while delivering only marginal gains for our national resilience. Cyber-security is a shared responsibility between Government, regulators, industry and the public, but leadership must come from the top, and that is where this Bill currently falls short.

With the private sector taking the lion’s share of the load while gaping holes remain in public sector cyber-defences, the Bill begs obvious questions about the confidence that citizens should have in flagship Government projects such as the Prime Minister’s mandatory digital identity system. As it stands, the Bill would not have prevented high-profile cyber-shutdowns such as Jaguar Land Rover’s, it does little to address the chronic vulnerabilities in the public sector, and it certainly will not make Labour’s dodgy ID database any more secure. That is why, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, we will be pressing this Government to ensure that it delivers genuine security, proper accountability and raised cyber-defences across the board, while taking them to task on major mistakes such as mandatory ID. Cyber-security is no longer a niche compliance exercise; it is about protecting the fundamental economic and defence interests of our nation.

BBC Charter Review: Terms of Reference and Green Paper

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The Government have today published the terms of reference and the Green Paper consultation for the BBC charter review, formally launching the review.

The BBC is an institution like no other. For over 100 years it has been at the heart of our national life and a light on the hill for people across the world. This charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future, with a clear ambition to set the BBC on a path to thrive until well into the latter half of this century.

Our vision is for a BBC that is trusted, loved and belongs to us all, providing those shared spaces and places that have become so rare and so precious in recent decades. Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story. A broadcaster known for its unique strengths, from the highest-quality children’s programmes to impartial and trusted news and documentaries, the world over.

The review will focus on the following areas, which are set out in the objectives in the terms of reference and the Green Paper:

Trust, independence and accountability are central to the BBC’s future, to how it operates and to how it engages with audiences. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and, critically, it must continue to command public trust.

To ensure that the BBC remains a trusted institution, it must also follow the highest editorial standards. This is how the BBC provides the facts necessary for civilised debate and a foundation of shared national understanding. It must continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally, and delivering on its role as a UK soft power asset promoting British values abroad.

The BBC needs to also reflect the whole of the UK. People, right across our nation, must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities, and their contributions. This means the BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world.

This charter review will ensure that the BBC continues to remain an engine of growth driving good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK and a leader in technologies that provide public value.

Finally, we have to ensure that the BBC is funded in a way that is sustainable for the long term, providing the BBC with the funding it needs to continue to deliver a vital public service, while also being fair for audiences.

The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper next year ahead of tabling a new charter, which Parliament will have the chance to debate. The new charter must come into force by 1 January 2028.

[HCWS1176]