London Fashion Week: Cultural Contribution

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison, for my first Westminster Hall debate in my new role. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), for his welcome. May I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting), with her long track record and experience in the industry, introduced this debate with a wonderful speech? If that is her first speech in Westminster Hall, I look forward to many more in the years to come. I particularly liked the way she described how young people relate to fashion as a way of expressing themselves, and how young people should be able to get on to that fashion career path. It is a great passion of the Secretary of State and myself to get more young people from all over the country, particularly from working-class backgrounds, into industries that have been impenetrable for too many for too long.

I am proud, in this debate, to celebrate the successes of Britain’s fashion industry and particularly London Fashion Week, which starts on Thursday. It will be the 41st showcase, and I am delighted to join my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering in welcoming the new chief executive officer, Laura Weir, who has such a busy week ahead but has taken the time to join us in the Public Gallery. As everyone in Westminster Hall can see with their own eyes, my fashion sense makes me perfectly qualified to reply to this debate—indeed, it has caused much consternation and hilarity in the Department that I am responding.

I am responding to this debate, however, because Britain’s fashion is world leading. It is a cornerstone of our creative economy, as many hon. Members have said, with 800,000 people contributing to it. It puts nearly £30 billion into the UK economy, which is more than aerospace and defence combined, and it drives £16 billion of consumer spending in related industries, such as tourism.

London Fashion Week stands at the centre of that success. It is far more than a showcase of style; it is an important driver of economic growth, cultural diplomacy and our national identity. Each season it generates substantial revenue through direct sales, international orders and high-value trade opportunities.

The British Fashion Council estimates that orders placed during London Fashion Week exceed £100 million from overseas buyers alone. By drawing a global audience of buyers, media and investors, London Fashion Week reinforces the UK’s standing as one of the world’s leading creative superpowers. That is really important for the posture of this country, in terms of our creative industries. Moreover, as one of the big four fashion weeks, London Fashion Week puts Britain’s fashion on the global stage. It acts as a cultural ambassador, profiling British creativity, influencing perceptions and attracting tourism, trade and talent from across the globe.

London Fashion Week is not just about London. The BFC’s City Wide Celebration takes the experience and excitement of the capital’s fashion week programme to other cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan)—and Newcastle. Throughout this month, more than 100,000 activations and promotions are taking place all across the country as part of the City Wide celebrations. City Wide Liverpool took place two weeks ago, during which Liverpool ONE shopping centre saw a quarter of million visitors and a 14% uplift in sales.

We have heard the voice of the Welsh fashion industry from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), showcasing the Welsh creators and the contribution to our national fashion scene. It would be remiss of me, with my accent and constituency, not to mention Scotland’s contribution to the fashion industry. Not only are there great designers and great fashion innovators, but tartan itself is a great fashion icon. I recall a story from when I was in New York for Tartan Week this year. Anyone who goes to America or anywhere else in the world and wears their kilt will know that they often get asked what tartan it is. I said mine, which is the Murray of Atholl—a dark green colour with a red stripe—to this rather flamboyant chap who was marching down Sixth Avenue with us in the Tartan Day parade. When I asked him what his tartan was—it was yellow and black—I expected him to give me the name of some Scottish ancestral tartan, but he merely replied “Vivienne Westwood.” So our wonderful British fashion icons do span the globe.

Alongside its impact in the realms of economics and soft power, as we have all discussed, London Fashion Week is a vital incubator for new talent, and that is really important. It is the only fashion week in the world to host a shared space for emerging designers. The British Fashion Council’s NEWGEN programme, which supports the best new fashion design talent, is now in its 32nd year. It has been the launchpad for the careers of some of the country’s most prominent designers, whose names we have heard in Westminster Hall this afternoon, including Alexander McQueen, Christopher Kane and Grace Wales Bonner. We need to continue to encourage that really important programme. We have recognised its importance, and the Government have supported NEWGEN designers in showcasing at London Fashion Week.

It is right that the Government invest in the talent of the future in that way, and I am proud that we committed to continuing the funding for the UK’s fashion talent pipeline in the creative industries sector plan, which I hope all Members have read. The industry was heavily involved in making sure that fashion was a key part of that programme.

Fashion is a cornerstone of the UK’s creative industries—an area of national pride and economic strength. Together, the creative industries contribute 2.4 million jobs to our economy and £124 billion in gross value added, while also shaping how we see ourselves and how the world sees us. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering mentioned the recent activities on the streets of London and other cities and towns across the country. I firmly believe that the creative industries are the glue that binds our communities and us all together, so driving that innovation, investment and cultural influence is in all our national interests.

The sector is an ecosystem—that is the most important word we can use for it—where designers, artists, businesses and freelancers inspire one another, and fashion plays a key and leading role. Sir Paul Smith is a powerful example of that. His designs are globally renowned, spanning clothing, furniture, cars and film. Through Paul Smith’s Foundation, he is also nurturing the next generation of creatives with mentoring and training and by giving opportunities to others. That contribution was recognised by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on a recent visit to the foundation.

That is why the Government have put the creative industries at the heart of our plan for change. Our creative industries sector plan, launched in June, commits £380 million to extra support for innovation, skills, access to finance and regional growth over the next decade. That includes expanding the British Business Bank’s support to help creative SMEs to secure investment, new flexibilities in training to tackle the skills gap, refreshed careers services for young people, which is hugely important, and measures to boost exports.

For fashion specifically, as well as backing NEWGEN at London Fashion Week, as I mentioned, and supporting British designers on the international stage, including through the British Fashion Council’s showroom at Paris Fashion Week, these initiatives connect emerging UK designers with global buyers and press, driving sales and raising the profile of our British talent worldwide.

Of course, the creative industries do much more than enrich culture; they fuel progress across the wider economy. From video game technology advancing medical research to fashion materials supporting space exploration, creativity is powering innovation and shaping the future of our lives, our communities and the wider country. Like other creative industries, fashion is making an impact beyond its boundaries. The industry has led the way on sustainability by embedding circular design principles into businesses, adopting new low-impact materials, and innovating with production processes and waste reduction, as we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who encouraged us all to use Vinted and eBay more often. I am not sure that even on Vinted and eBay I could get a cheaper suit than I am wearing at the moment, but I shall try. She had a pitch to be the new CEO of an MPs’ catwalk next year; she might have dismissed the suggestion rather quickly, but it is in the mix none the less.

The UK Research and Innovation circular fashion programme has provided a launchpad for all this work by facilitating collaboration across the UK fashion and textiles industry to produce a comprehensive national textile recycling infrastructure plan and a practical framework for extended producer responsibility, as well as further insights into the challenges and opportunities of sustainability in the fashion sector. London Fashion Week plays a key role in driving this agenda, and it is the first of the big four fashion weeks to have adopted sustainability requirements for exhibiting brands.

Designers themselves are going further. This week will provide a platform for labels such as Patrick McDowell and Paolo Carzana to showcase designs based around innovative, low-impact and recycled materials. Similarly, the fashion industry has taken actions to advance equity, diversity and inclusivity across all its workforce, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). London Fashion Week has been at the forefront of all this progress, driving change globally and pioneering representation by championing designers and models who reflect the richness and diversity of all of society—from designers such as Sinéad O’Dwyer, who focuses on size inclusivity, to disabled models such as Kelly Knox. This year’s show will feature Victoria Jenkins’s label Unhidden, which focuses on clothing for people with disabilities, producing stylish, inclusive and adaptive designs, and providing means of expression for the disabled and chronically sick community through fashion.

It has been a privilege to participate in this debate and celebrate the cultural contribution of London Fashion Week. The Government are committed to supporting the fashion sector and the wider creative industries, as shown by the ambitious sector plan that we published earlier this year. I will attend London Fashion Week this week in some capacity, and I look forward to celebrating British creativity and innovation on the global stage. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering for securing the debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for taking part and for all their excellent contributions.

Life Sciences Investment

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the cancellation of life sciences investment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Ian Murray)]

I start by welcoming the hon. Member to her new role. I wanted to do that yesterday, but time ran away from us during questions. I am answering this question on behalf of the Secretary of State.

As a significant life sciences company that employs more than 1,600 people and plays a leading role in delivering new treatments for diseases such as cancer, Merck—known as MSD in the UK—is a valued partner to this Government, and a key player in the life sciences ecosystem. MSD’s decision to not progress its investment in King’s Cross—a commercial decision for MSD—is therefore deeply disappointing.

King’s Cross is a shining example of the strengths of UK life sciences clusters. It is one of the biggest in Europe, employing more than 60,000 people in the area. It has had investment from major life sciences companies, including Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca. It houses world-leading institutions, such as the Francis Crick Institute and the Wellcome Trust, as well as some of the country’s leading biomedical research centres. University College London hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital and Moorfields eye hospital are also based there.

We are proud of this industry; it has delivered great things for our country in the past, does so today and will continue to do so in the future. That is why life sciences is one of the eight priority sectors in the industrial strategy, and is backed by £2 billion of public investment to enable it to grow, lead the world and make great discoveries, such as personalised cancer vaccines and the new test for Alzheimer’s disease. MSD’s investment in the area would have enhanced the sector’s status further, and the fundamentals of the UK market are actually more advantageous today than when it made the decision to invest in this project. What has changed are the US and international fundamentals.

The UK has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, but of course, there is still a lot more for this Government to do. The academic environment in the UK continues to produce innovative ideas, and the talent to run with those ideas, which attracts foreign investment. The environment for research is outstanding; we have great academics; and the NHS provides a research platform that is second to none.

The decision is in part due to a broader effort by MSD to ensure that the company is optimising its investment and focusing its resources on its key drivers of growth. As such, it is not continuing its job discovery operations in the UK. The company has recently announced in its quarterly report that it is to cut $3 billion a year from its operating costs, resulting in a significant impact on its share price. That is compounded by an ever more challenging and uncertain global economic situation as regards trade and tariffs.

The problem with NHS medicines goes back 15 years— I wonder who was in charge over that period. Spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9% in that time, and the last joint agreement on medicine prices by the sector and the previous Government was in 2023. We are living with the consequences of under-investment by the previous Government, who took their eye off the ball when it comes to NHS medicine investment. My right hon. Friend the Health and Social Care Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the sector in the summer. However, the Government also recognise that we need to do more to support and grow our life sciences sector. We have already started delivering on the work of investing £600 million in the health data research service alongside the Wellcome Trust, and are committing up to £520 million for life sciences innovation and manufacturing, unlocking billions of pounds. We continue to work closely with the sector to unlock growth and ensure life-changing treatments and technologies for this innovative sector.

MSD will continue to be a key investor in the UK. I welcome its continued investment in clinical trials, and its significant partnerships with our institutions, such as Our Future Health. MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people. We remain closely engaged with MSD as we take forward the life sciences sector plan and the 10-year NHS plan.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say this gently, as Ministers are in new positions, but you are only allowed three minutes in an urgent question, not the five minutes you get for a statement. I am sure that you are coming to the end now, Minister.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you for your advice, Mr Speaker. I am on my last sentence. We will continue to explore opportunities to partner with MSD further and build on our long-standing relationship.

[Julia Lopez]

I hope you will give me the same flexibility if I go a little over my time, Mr Speaker.

[Julia Lopez]

Last night, US pharmaceutical giant Merck cancelled the construction of a £1 billion drug research centre in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Eight hundred jobs that were going to be provided have now evaporated; 125 scientists were to be employed—no longer. The message from Merck executives was unsparing: simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive. The Government must wake up now.

If AstraZeneca’s announcement on investment was the canary in the mine for UK life sciences, last night’s announcement should be a klaxon sounding across Whitehall. Will the Minister assure us that he is arranging urgent meetings with Health, Business and Treasury Ministers today?

The facility was going to specialise in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It was going to feed into the work of a cluster of life sciences bodies, such as the Francis Crick Institute. Did the Government engage with Merck before its decision? What damage will this cause to research and medicine access for our constituents who are affected by those conditions?

The Government told UK taxpayers that their devastating national insurance hike would boost the NHS, but NHS leaders admit that the money has gone on national insurance, wage deals and drug price inflation, not better services, and there is no money left for negotiations with life sciences companies. In fact, life sciences have faced a £1.6 billion tax bill and a real-terms cut to research and development. What are Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology doing to push the Health Secretary for progress on health data, advanced therapies, price negotiations and regulatory reform of the kind that will improve our life sciences offer?

For the last year, Labour has dined out on deals secured by the last Conservative Government. We were promised that a US-UK trade deal would open doors for business. Instead, American firms are cancelling projects, and our ambassador, who should have been batting for Britain, was battling for survival. Now that Lord Mandelson has slinked away—again—who is speaking to the Americans about this collapsed deal? What will the Prime Minister be doing ahead of President Trump’s state visit to help UK life sciences?

I welcome the Minister to his place, but where is the Secretary of State? In her very first week, she has overseen a £1 billion investment collapse. If she does not understand that this is the most important thing in her brief right now, and if the Government do not change course, it will not be the last deal to collapse.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for bringing the urgent question to the Chamber, as this is an incredibly important issue. Let me answer some of the questions—I think there were some questions in there.

The shadow Secretary of State asked what message America has given to the Government, but the message was from Merck in its quarterly report just a few months ago, when it had to cut $3 billion a year from its operations. That is a significant amount of money, and the company’s share price reflected the significance of that announcement. There is no doubt that MSD makes the world’s most profitable and popular cancer drug, which goes out of patent in 2028. It said in the quarterly report that that is causing some pressure with its share- holders. The US trade deal, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, said that we would use best endeavours to improve the conditions for US pharmaceutical companies in the UK, and the tariff for pharmaceutical companies to the US remains at 0%. The EU has a 15% blanket tariff.

In terms of NHS medicines, it is a common theme that shadow Secretaries of State come to this Chamber and bemoan the state of the economy and what has happened in the NHS. Waiting lists are falling from the record levels they were at. Satisfaction with the NHS when we left government in 2010 was at its highest level ever. It is now at its lowest—

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

There is no doubt that spending on NHS medicines has fallen from 15% to 9%, which is part of the problems in the pharmaceutical industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, but it chose not to vote on that, so he withdrew from negotiations.

We are trying to clear up the mess that has been left after 14 years of Conservative government. The shadow Secretary of State should realise that that mess is deep and wide, and it will cause problems in the sector, but as the Health Secretary has stated a number of times, including when he made that £1 billion offer, he is trying to resolve some of these underlying issues.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I welcome the Minister to his place, but I wish it was under better circumstances. The loss of Merck’s investment, following the loss of AstraZeneca’s investment in January, will certainly be perceived as a blow to the UK’s life sciences sector, though we must not forget the amazing work that businesses, start-ups and researchers do in constituencies across the country, including my own. We also must not forget the importance of value for money in NHS spending.

The Select Committee will hold an urgent session on Tuesday to examine the issues in the life sciences sector, including tariffs, investment incentives from the US, access to capital and the relationship with NHS pricing. In the meantime, it is clear that the life sciences sector plan, published in July, does not reflect market conditions. Could the Minister update us on how, and how quickly, he plans to revise that plan?

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for that constructive approach, and I look forward to the session on Tuesday to examine this really important issue. She mentioned the life sciences sector plan, which is really important. It comes with significant investment in research and development, improving clinical trial performance, and moving money and support from other key sectors into the sectors that are in the industrial strategy. Life sciences benefit from that. There is £2.5 billion a year going into life sciences from this Government, and that contributes to the £9 billion that the private sector invests every year.

As the Chair of the Select Committee will know, the Chancellor gave the most generous settlement for research and development ever in the spending review last year, with £86 billion over the spending review period. That is to support the industrial strategy, of which life sciences is a key sector. I know from companies in my constituency that the sector is growing and needs more support, and we are determined to deliver that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. It is incredibly disappointing that MSD has pulled out of this billion-pound investment in the UK, including the loss of more than 100 jobs in important life sciences infrastructure. However, this has been on the cards for some time, and the warnings to Government have fallen on deaf ears. Earlier this year, AstraZeneca also cancelled planned upgrades to its production, and Novartis has described the UK as “largely uninvestable”. One pharmaceutical company reducing its UK operations is a problem, but there is a worrying trend that threatens a crisis in the sector.

The UK is becoming less and less attractive to the life sciences industry, and with good reason. First, the Budget saw huge rises in costs to all businesses, including through Labour’s jobs tax. Secondly, there has been a notable lack of investment across the life sciences sector, including in job creation, critical skills and creating a commercial environment that can compete internationally. The Lib Dems continue to call for the Government to make research and development investment 3.5% of GDP, and the life sciences would be a key focus. That would be coupled with extra support for academic institutions to commercialise research. How do the Government plan to restore confidence among pharmaceutical companies that the UK is a competitive place for research and development and manufacturing?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. It is important to lay out to the public and to the House that MSD will continue to employ 1,600 people and be a key part of the life sciences sector. There are many companies that are investing in this country—Moderna, BioNTech, Isomorphic Labs—and in my own constituency, Roslin CT is expanding at such a great pace that it cannot keep up with the amount of space and the wet lab facilities it requires. Those are all the challenges that we have to try and deal with.

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman: the second sentence of his contribution was about the national insurance increases for employers and the fourth was about spending more money on R&D and life sciences. They cannot both be true. If we want to spend money on our priorities—political parties will have different priorities—we have to raise that money. We cannot have it both ways. The message to the industry is: this is the best place in the world to invest. Bring your investment here and this Government back you through an industrial strategy and a life sciences sector plan.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. Exeter has a very strong life sciences and R&D sector and just recently the University of Exeter was awarded £10.5 million from UK Research and Innovation to set up the metamaterials hub—that is real cutting-edge science—which also leveraged extra private sector investment of another £10 million. Does the Minister agree that that sort of investment and commitment to research and development will enable cities such as Exeter to thrive and grow in future?

[Ian Murray]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work with the university in his constituency in a whole number of areas. All who represent university towns— I do as well—know that there is significant investment going into research and development and the life sciences, because that is the future for this country.

This country is committed to growth, and I assure my hon. Friend that I will do everything I can in this role to ensure that we invest in that. I gently remind the House again that the spending review saw the largest ever settlement for research and development in this country at £86 billion. That says to the industry: we are open for business; come and invest here and put life sciences at the top of that investment.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Discovery Park in my constituency at Sandwich is the phoenix that rose from the ashes of Pfizer. It is now a cluster of over 100 enterprising and successful small companies in the life sciences field. The loss of cornerstones such as AstraZeneca and MSD could have a devastating effect upon the architecture of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. What are the Government going to do, practically, to reverse the decline in confidence in that industry?

[Ian Murray]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, that in the first part of his question he quite rightly promotes the wonderful work that is going on in his constituency at the Discovery Park and then says that everything is doom and gloom. That is not the case. This Government are investing in research and development to the tune of £86 billion, we are investing in the life sciences—it is one of the eight key sectors in the industrial strategy—and I hope that the business park in his constituency benefits fundamentally from that. I merely repeat that MSD is not leaving the UK. It will still employ 1,600 people here and be the cornerstone of research in this country.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place. This is devastating news for the research scientists and the fantastic work they do on neuroscience, inflammation and immunology. Some of that is being carried out at the Francis Crick Institute, where I declare I am unpaid visiting research scientist. Does the Minister agree that the UK has so much expertise to offer and that he needs to look at the whole life science ecosystem, from bench discovery to dispensing at the bedside? Will he join us at the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee on Tuesday afternoon when we can go into those issues in depth?

[Ian Murray]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work, unpaid, at the research institute. It will be good to hear from her about what she sees from inside the sector. She raises, I think, the most important point in any debate about science, research and development and life sciences in particular in this country: we have world-class institutions and companies and they are made so by the world-class scientists and academics that work within them. We should cherish that, we should grow it and we should have more

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

At Porton Down in my constituency, there is a hub of life science businesses. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I recognise the difficult dilemmas that all Governments have in where to focus investment. However, the Minister must surely recognise that the additional cost of employing people, with the additional rights and burdens that that puts on employers—particularly small employers—plus 11 weeks of speculation about further tax increases will not make any sector feel more comfortable about where to invest in this country.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister, so he understands some of the issues involved here. I would merely point him to the report MSD released to its shareholders for the first quarter, in which it said that it had to divest from $3 billion a year in operating costs—that is a huge part of its operating agenda. It is a geopolitical issue as well as a commercial decision.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

The Minister will know that the part of London where MSD was going to invest has received significant investment for medical research, particularly research of brain-related diseases. This decision casts doubt on the future of the greater King’s Cross area. What are the implications of the decision to disinvest on that particular proposal, which has cross-party support?

[Ian Murray]

At this stage, I am not aware that there will be any downside to the entirety of the ecosystem that revolves around the King’s Cross area of London. This decision has obviously come very late to the Government, and we will work with MSD on the future. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), there is a very bright future for this particular cluster, and for all the other clusters we have heard about from other Members across the Chamber this morning.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

For transparency, I should declare that I was the director of the Knowledge Quarter partnership in King’s Cross and cabinet member responsible for negotiating the MSD headquarters deal. It is disappointing news today. Turning to my current constituency, I hear from a number of life sciences and pharmaceutical companies that they have concerns about the previous Government’s levy under VPAG—the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth—and how it is working in practice, in particular that it is focused on revenue, not profit, and does not take into account the differential level of R&D needed. Celltrion, a South Korean company in my constituency, highlights that biosimilar medications require a lot more investment than other forms of pharmaceuticals. Will the Minister or his counterpart meet me and Celltrion to discuss the biosimilar sector and how we can support it to grow?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and would be happy to take him up on that meeting to hear about his experience directly. He raises the big issue around the legacy left by the previous Government after 15 years of underinvestment in medical pricing. The Health Secretary made a £1 billion offer to the pharmaceutical industry over the summer, which the pharmaceutical industry decided not to vote on, so it was withdrawn, which was disappointing. The last deal was done in 2023 under the previous Government. This is a long-term issue that must be resolved.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Life sciences play a significant role in the economy and public health initiatives across the Liverpool city region. It was a blow earlier this year when AstraZeneca pulled out of the £450 million deal to expand its plant in Speke. How is the Department supporting the Liverpool City Mayor and the life sciences investment zone to build confidence and secure greater investment for the sector?

[Ian Murray]

Very simply, the life sciences sector plan has been set out to give the industry certainty over the longer term that this Government are serious about the investment that both we and the industry will make in the sector, with £2.5 billion a year from this Government and, at £86 billion, the largest settlement for R&D ever in the spending review. I hope that gives reassurance to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to the life sciences companies in her constituency and around the region that this Government are serious about backing them.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I welcome the right hon. Member to his new role, although admittedly I am surprised that Labour have adopted the fire and rehire strategy. Scotland has one of the highest concentrations of life sciences hubs, and in the past five years has created six innovation centres directly aligned to life sciences. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of this announcement on Scotland’s research and development sector, and what support does he plan to put in place?

[Ian Murray]

I visited RoslinCT in my own constituency last Friday. The life sciences sector in Scotland is indeed buoyant and flourishing. There are lots of opportunities for it to expand. It is probably a dividend of the Union.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that the Minister has confirmed and reiterated that the life sciences remain a priority in the industrial strategy. Keele University in Newcastle-under-Lyme is at the heart of our life sciences sector, which is particularly important for jobs and opportunities in the industrial heartlands in communities like mine, so will the Minister find time to meet me to talk about how we can support the work at Keele—or, even better, will he get on the train to come and see us?

[Ian Murray]

I am very happy to do so. I think that is my third invite already this morning. The question and the invite to Newcastle-under-Lyme demonstrate the thriving life sciences sector all across the country. I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we intend to back the life sciences sector. Although the decision from MSD in relation to their new building at King’s Cross was incredibly disappointing, the sector is a thriving one, and many companies are investing and growing very quickly.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

This is just the latest in a series of blows to UK life sciences. Companies have been pulled towards the US with incentives and tariffs, while we have no detailed industrial strategy, an uncompetitive tax regime from the Treasury, and a Department of Health and Social Care that undervalues drug access. When the Government announced their life sciences plan, it fell short of what the industry and the sector expected, so will the Government commit to an updated cross-party refresh and give businesses the stability they need to invest in Britain?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Member talks about yet more spending but with no idea of how the revenue would be increased. This Government had to make some incredibly difficult decisions in order to balance the books to give that stability in the economy so that we could invest in R&D, including in the life sciences. The NHS 10-year plan is moving from treatment to prevention, which require medicines; moving from hospital to community, which will require medicines; and moving from analogue to digital, which will enhance and better target medicines for patients. That is just one example of what we are doing in the NHS to improve our life sciences sector. It is a key part of the industrial strategy—one of the eight key sectors—and we intend to back it through the strategy.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed) to his place as life sciences Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care.

I am incredibly ambitious for the life sciences in my constituency of Bracknell and across Berkshire; it is a key industry for us. Will my right hon. Friend share my ambition and agree to meet me, or set up a meeting with the life sciences Minister, to discuss what more we can do to support the sector in Bracknell?

[Ian Murray]

In the interests of time: yes.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Medical isotopes are critical for the treatment of cancer, for diagnoses and for other medical applications, yet there have long been concerns about security of supply. Through Project ARTHUR—advanced radioisotope technology for health utility reactor—the Welsh Government are working with the nuclear-licensed site at Trawsfynydd in my constituency to develop the means of producing medical isotopes for security of supply here in the UK. What is the Minister’s Department doing to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to find a way of bringing that forward?

[Ian Murray]

I have just been working with the Department of Health and Social Care to try to bring that forward. I do not know the exact answer to the right hon. Lady’s question. If I knew the answer, I would give it. I do not, so I will write to her.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to his place.

The life sciences sector is helping to regenerate parts of south Birmingham’s economy, from the new Waters pharmaceutical factory on the old Longbridge MG Rover site in my constituency to the University of Birmingham’s life science incubator. The Minister has been extremely generous in agreeing to meet Members today, so continuing in that spirit, would he be willing to meet south Birmingham MPs to discuss what more can be done to support this very important part of our local economy?

[Ian Murray]

I am tempted to say no, just to see what reaction that gets! But of course I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member across the House to discuss the life sciences sector. Whether we are talking about the north, south, east or west, including in my own constituency, the life sciences play a key role and will continue to do so.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I must declare that my wife works in the pharmaceutical and life sciences industry. The Minister and the Chancellor claim to want to boost growth, yet investment is fleeing the very sectors that he claims are a priority. Is it not the case that the vague aspirations of the Government do not meet the real-world test and that the people who are going to suffer from this are his constituents and, unfortunately, mine?

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s wife on what she does in the sector—she is the only one in the family with a real job. That shows the depth and breadth of the sector across the country; everyone will know someone who works in it. We have £86 billion from the spending review going into research and development, and £2.5 billion backing the life sciences sector plan. Economic and geopolitical issues are of course affecting the pharmaceutical industry at the moment. As I said in my opening remarks, MSD’s quarterly report said that it had to take $3 billion out of operating costs over the next few years; unfortunately and regrettably, this decision is part of that plan.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I represent people who work at the excellent Living Systems Institute at the University of Exeter. The purpose-built institute was launched in 2017 to bring together physicists, mathematicians, biologists and biomedical scientists, with the expectation that the life sciences sector was going to enjoy substantial foreign direct investment in the years to come. What effect do the Government anticipate the withdrawal of private investment for life sciences will have on research students, including those at Exeter?

[Ian Murray]

I would say to life sciences students in the fledgling part of their career that it is a career they should be in for the long term. Life sciences is the future, which is why it is one of the eight key sectors in our industrial strategy. The news the Government have had today on MSD’s commercial decision is incredibly disappointing, but lots of wonderful stuff is going on in the sector, so we should not talk it down. Moderna is investing more, BioNTech is investing more, Isomorphic Labs is investing more, and RoslinCT in my constituency is investing more. Right across the Chamber today we have heard about the companies that are investing more in life sciences. It is a growing industry, so I say to fledgling academics and people who want to get involved in the industry: get in there.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. I think we are all seeking reassurance in relation to the sector. The news that MSD has withdrawn its plan for a research centre in the United Kingdom, with the loss of 125 potential jobs and staff, is devastating for our science plans. It shows a lack of faith in long-term planning by the investors we are so reliant on. How will the Minister seek to reassure global partners that science investment is a priority for this Government? Will we see a swift return of investment to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Ian Murray]

Our workforce are the very best in the world, and our world-class institutions are made world class because of that world-class workforce. This is the best place in the world to invest at the moment. We are in discussions with the US in respect of the pharmaceutical industry and the tariffs in the EU-US economic deal. Lots of positive stuff is going on in the industry, and if we are to send out one message to the industry from the House today, it is that the industry is thriving. It is one of the eight key sectors in our industrial strategy and this Government back it. We are backing it with money, with our strategy, and as a whole Government.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

In terms of my Register of Members’ Financial Interests, may I say that my special adviser attended the television BAFTAs as a guest of Channel 4? I am told that I must declare that, so it is on the record.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Was I the only one who didn’t go?

[Ian Murray]

I did not go either. I was not invited. Maybe after this speech I might get an invite next year, if Channel 4 is not privatised.

Let me say at the outset that this country is the best in the world at making television and films, that our broadcasters are the envy of the world and that Channel 4 is a much-loved part of that essential ecosystem. But why would that prevent the constant ideological attacks from the Government on those who contribute so much to our cultural Britain? We are proud of our public sector broadcasters and we should be backing them, not privatising them.

We have heard it said a lot today that Channel 4 is in great health, and it is. The public broadcasting model for Channel 4 works. As we have heard, in the last couple of years Channel 4 has produced record surpluses. And just for the information of the Secretary of State, who mentioned it again in her contribution, Channel 4 gets no public money. Those surpluses are invested back into the British creative economy, rather than into the hands of private shareholders. That investment, of course, is not limited to London, but goes to the entire country. Why? Because the regulations mean that it has to be. In fact, two thirds of the hours of original content commissioned by Channel 4 are produced in the nations and regions, boosting the creative economy in cities such as Glasgow. Over 400 roles at Channel 4, including senior commissioning decision makers, are based outside London, commissioning content from all over the UK for all over the UK. Perhaps another reason the Government want to privatise Channel 4 is because it is showing the Conservatives up by actually delivering levelling up far better than the Prime Minister could ever imagine. Some might say there is no reason that will not continue, but I am afraid that, with almost no conditions in the White Paper, there is little hope that it will.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent start to his contribution and his point is well made. Channel 4’s 4Skills initiative is based in its headquarters in Leeds. It provides opportunities in television and film for young people from right across the regions and nations, including Scotland, the south-west and the midlands, as well as Yorkshire. Without Channel 4, that would not exist. If it is privatised, there is no guarantee it will continue.

[Ian Murray]

Yes, it is the cultural levelling up that Channel 4 has been able to achieve as part of its own agenda.

Analysis by EY—Ernst and Young—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), estimates that over £1 billion would be lost from the UK’s nations and regions if Channel 4 did not invest in the way that it does now, and that nearly 2,500 jobs in the creative sector would be at risk. That is independent analysis. It is not just those directly employed by the broadcaster who would be impacted, but the entire British creative economy. As my hon. Friend mentioned, it is a creative economy that relies on economies of scale, security of funding and a pipeline of skills.

In its lifetime, Channel 4 has invested—we have heard this already—£12 billion in the independent production sector in this country. Every year, it works with almost 300 production companies, many of which are tiny, as well as medium and large-scale production companies. This proposal does not just impact the big stars in London studios, but the camera operators, the crew runners, the location scouts and everything that makes a production happen in every single region and nation of the UK. The harsh reality is that a privatised Channel 4 would be commercially incentivised to buy in programmes from overseas instead of supporting new and innovative projects in the UK. Why? Because it costs a lot of money to make content and that would hit profits. Look at some of the big loss makers, such as the award-winning Paralympics coverage which has not really been mentioned in this debate. It is a huge loss for Channel 4 in terms of its financial viability, but it does it and it does it incredibly well.

If I could reflect on the contribution made at the end by the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), he made a critical point. Not only did he say that there are no options papers on where the future of Channel 4 could be beyond privatisation, but he hit the nail on the head. A lot of the contributions from the Government Benches have been about the headwinds that are just about to hit Channel 4. Those headwinds will hit Channel 4 whether it is in the public sector or private sector. It is hardly a good selling point to say, “We want to privatise one of our national assets to ensure it is not hit with these headwinds,” when a commercial broadcaster would cut the very things that Channel 4 does so well in times of hardship.

[Damian Collins]

The hon. Gentleman implied that commercial companies would look to buy in programmes, rather than make them. Why is it, then, that most TV companies that have their own production studios are massively investing in making more programmes? ITV, BBC, Sky and Netflix are. Everyone recognises that the way to make money in the TV market today is to make programmes to sell, not buy in from other people.

[Ian Murray]

Yes, but Channel 4 puts all those issues on the table in terms of investing directly in production. Channel 4 provides that shop window. If you say to a production company in Scotland which makes “Location, Location, Location”, “Would you like to make that for Channel 4, but you don’t get the IP?” either the costs will shoot up or they will not make it at all. This model works. It is part of the ecosystem. Production in places such as Leeds, Salford and Scotland is working so well at the moment because we have the BBC, ITV studios and Channel 4, all different parts of that ecosystem working together, so we have the economies of scale, the skills and the ability for people to be able to invest, because they know they can make great shows and great films in those places.

Let me reflect on some of the contributions that have been made this afternoon. The Father of the House kicked us off, and was absolutely correct to say that Channel 4 does not want privatisation. The Secretary of State is essentially saying, “We know best, so we will do to Channel 4 what we think is best.” The Father of the House concluded by saying, “stop messing it around”. That is right. Why try to fix something that is not broken?

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) in his own wonderful style did a superb “Yes Minister” characterisation. Channel 4 does not have a problem to solve, but the Government are trying to find one; he was right to call it “Parliamentary Pointless”.

I will reflect on the impacts on Scotland later in my speech, but the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) was right to say that privatising Channel 4 will have a huge impact on the Welsh production sector. With the BBC investing in Cardiff and Channel 4 putting productions into the city, the sector in Wales has flourished in a way that it did not before.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is right to say that Channel 4 is an enabler. We need the big production companies to be able to make programmes in order to seed smaller production companies and the entire industry. If we do not have those productions—the big returning drama shows—it is difficult to maintain a production company in an area, which Channel 4 does so well.

The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) said, “D’oh!”—maybe the first person to mention Homer Simpson in the Chamber, although I am not sure whether he was impersonating Homer Simpson or recalling the motto of Downing Street.

The hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) told us that he watched Channel 4 at night when he was younger, but that he has never watched “Naked Attraction”. Mr Deputy Speaker, he needs to come to the House and correct the record, because nobody believes him! [Laughter.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) reeled off a list of wonderful television programmes and films that Channel 4 has made over the years, including “Drop the Dead Donkey”, or, as it was rebranded last week, “Vote of No Confidence”.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) also tried to create a problem that does not exist. Along with a number of contributors this afternoon, he said that Channel 4 should be released from its shackles to be able to borrow. Well, it has not borrowed or required to borrow in 40 years. Maybe it will not require to borrow in the next 40.

Let us not forget about film, as this is not just about the impact of privatisation on television. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central, the broadcaster is the single largest investor in British film through Film4. We can see how wonderful some of those films have been, as they have won BAFTAs every single year and have really put the British film industry on the map. I think that gets to the heart of why so many people are outraged by the Government’s proposals.

Our great nation punches so well above its weight when it comes to our cultural impact on the world. There are few better examples of that than the British stars of screen—big and small. Many of our most famous faces got their big break through Film4 productions, many of which were huge risks to Channel 4, but because of its funding model and way it was set up, it was able to take those risks and some of those productions were hugely successful. I think of Ewan McGregor, Olivia Colman and Dev Patel, who we have heard about already, and film-makers including Danny Boyle and Steve McQueen. It is little wonder that so many stars, film-makers and directors have come out against and condemned the Government’s plans.

What of training, skills and jobs? We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on this issue. Let us not beat about the bush: getting into the television and film industry is incredibly difficult for those who are lower down the socioeconomic scale. Channel 4 has been at the forefront of helping young people to get into the industry through 4Skills, which gives 15,000 young people a year opportunities to get into the sector. That costs money and is not the kind of thing that a commercial broadcaster will do. It has an industry-leading production training scheme through its supply chain that focuses solely on social mobility. That is all at risk. Why? Because it is not protected in the White Paper.

The move to sell off Channel 4 will have a particular impact on the Scottish creative economy. Since 2007, Channel 4 has spent more than £220 million on Scottish productions—about £20 million a year in recent years. It is the key commissioner from Scottish independent production companies and other Scottish broadcasters such as Scottish Television. Channel 4’s features and daytime team, its largest creative team, is now based at its Glasgow office. The broadcaster’s emerging indie fund and its indie growth fund have provided support to fantastic Scottish production companies such as Black Camel Pictures, which was responsible for the BAFTA-winning “Sunshine on Leith”.

And who can forget “Location, Location, Location”, one of Channel 4’s most successful shows, which is produced by IWC, a Scottish production company? Maybe the Prime Minister might need Phil and Kirstie’s help in finding a new place soon. I hope so. Even TV’s most famous house hunters might struggle to find a place with a built-in karaoke bar, but that is the challenge

Channel 4’s influence is not just on Scottish television. Film4 has produced memorable Scottish hits—perhaps none more so than “Trainspotting” in my home city, even though it did not portray Edinburgh in the best of lights. Film-making brings in £600 million a year in UK-bound tourism, right across the United Kingdom, although I am not sure that “Trainspotting” did Ladbrokes toilets any good. Channel 4 has given us generation-defining entertainment, and it will again.

I am grateful for the SNP’s support for our motion. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) made an excellent speech, but I must say that Channel 4 is also under threat from the SNP’s plans for independence. It proposes to put an end to Channel 4 in Scotland, because it would be independent, and it set out in 2014 that it would do the same for the BBC. What are its proposals for Channel 4 and the BBC? Governments are attacking our public sector broadcasters because those broadcasters hold the powerful to account, whether they like it or not. They are attacking the very principle of a UK-wide public service broadcaster delivering for diverse audiences all over the country. None the less, we are grateful for the SNP’s support for the motion.

Today, though, it is for Conservatives to make their decision. As we have heard, 91% of respondents to the Government’s own consultation made their opposition to the proposals clear. Those who oppose the proposals include the advertisers that pay for advertising on Channel 4 because of the diverse audiences that it produces, which other broadcasters cannot reach. If the Secretary of State is looking for a “Countdown” of Conservative Members who do not support her proposals, I say to her, “Three from the top, two from the middle and one large one.”

Will Conservative Members vote to sell the broadcaster to a private entity that is likely to centralise creative output in London, or will they vote to continue a model that invests in our creative economy in their very own constituencies? Will they sell a cornerstone of modern British culture to the highest bidder, or will they continue a great British institution that proudly exports our culture around the world?

The country would be grateful, the industry would be grateful and viewers would be grateful if the Secretary of State scrapped this privatisation. In the words of Mrs Doyle from another of the channel’s famous shows, “Go on, go on, go on.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

Yes, I will. I welcome the county council’s position. It has an ambition to save all 32 libraries in the county, which I am pleased with. I appreciate that there are challenges, but it is right that the council saves those libraries. I have recused myself from making a decision under the 1964 Act, for obvious reasons—it is my home county—but the reality is that libraries around the country should be supported.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to protect consumers from misleading broadband advertising.

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

The Government are working with industry and regulators to ensure that consumers receive clear and accurate information to help them make informed choices about their broadband. The Advertising Standards Authority has recently strengthened its rules on broadband advertising to ensure that speed claims in adverts are not misleading. A new Ofcom code of practice on broadband speeds will come into force next March.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but a High Court case has been raised today to try to overturn the Advertising Standards Authority’s decision to allow broadband to be advertised as fibre when large parts of it are of copper. Given that Edinburgh, where my constituency is, has just become a fibre city and that the Minister herself has called this advertising “misleading”, what can the Government do to ensure that when fibre broadband is advertised, it is indeed fibre end to end and does not have copper?

[Margot James]

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. As we know, the judicial review of the ASA’s decision, brought by CityFibre, is expected imminently, and we will continue to monitor that issue. In the meantime, however, I hope he can take comfort from the new Ofcom code that comes into effect next March, which will considerably strengthen the situation.

Johnston Press: Administration

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me—I am going to sound like a cracked record by the end of this urgent question—but there are reasons why I need to be cautious at this stage about what I say about the transaction and the way it has been conducted. There will be inquiries made into the way in which this has transpired, including the effect on small creditors. At this stage, we must await some of those conclusions before taking matters further.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Johnston Press pursued a very aggressive acquisition strategy over the past 10 years, which has partly put it in this position. It has left titles such as The Scotsman and the Edinburgh Evening News operating on very, very small numbers of staff. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there is any liability to the public purse and if so what he will be doing to pursue the new company to ensure that the public purse is repaid?

[Jeremy Wright]

For the reasons I have just given, I will not comment on the nature of the transaction itself. The hon. Gentleman is right that over the preceding years Johnston Press has acquired a number of different titles. That, of course, is a matter for its judgment. In the process of looking at the transaction, it will have to answer for judgments and decisions it has made. At this stage, however, we must await what the various bodies I have described conclude.

Draft Breaching Of Limits On Ticket Sales Regulations 2018

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 21st May 2018 General Committees

[The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Breaching of Limits on Ticket Sales Regulations 2018.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The regulations will be an important addition to our efforts to stamp out unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market. The activities of the secondary ticketing market are of interest to many parliamentary colleagues, including everyone here today, I am sure. The Government recognise that the process of distributing and buying tickets can be a cause of great public frustration and concern. We have probably all experienced the frustration of waiting for tickets to go on sale, our fingers hovering over the keyboard in the final countdown, only to find that all the tickets seem to have been mysteriously snapped up in seconds. What is even more frustrating is seeing those same tickets reappearing on secondary sites almost instantaneously at a massive mark-up.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Does the Minister feel that there is any cartel between the ticket reselling companies and the promoters of certain concerts, as tickets can be sold quickly before they even go on public sale?

[Margot James]

I could not comment very clearly on that. The hon. Gentleman raises a murky area, but given that so many of the tickets have been hoovered up by computer bots, I suggest that perhaps it is not all the result of cartel activity.

There is evidence that the cause of the problem is largely software bots that automate the ticket purchasing process on the primary market to circumvent limits on the maximum number of the tickets that are supposed to be purchased at any one time. The issue was specifically addressed by Professor Waterson in his May 2016 independent review of consumer rights provisions relating to online ticket sales. His view, which the Government share, was that ticket sellers should adopt strategies to prevent automated ticket purchasing by bots, although he noted that there was some uncertainty about the existing legal position on their use.

The regulations clarify the law by making it a criminal offence to purchase more tickets than the maximum permitted for recreational, sporting or cultural events in the UK, where the purchase is made electronically through the use of software designed for that purpose, and where the intent is to obtain financial gain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James]

The draft regulations cover any electronic means and make it a criminal offence to purchase tickets in bulk electronically, through the use of software. I might have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on whether that includes phone banks and whether electronic means include telephones. I shall make some more progress before I come back to him on that.

The draft regulations apply to events in the United Kingdom, but they cover activity to obtain tickets in any jurisdiction. The intended offence will be summary only, with a maximum punishment of an unlimited fine in England and Wales or an exceptional summary maximum in Scotland, as magistrates courts in Scotland do not have the power to impose unlimited fines. The relevant section of the Digital Economy Act 2017 was not commenced in Northern Ireland because of the ongoing suspension of the Northern Ireland Executive, but the intention is for it to be commenced and for this instrument to apply to events in Northern Ireland once legislative consent can be secured.

[Ian Murray]

Regulation 3(b) defines the offence that the Minister has just covered as not only

“to obtain tickets in excess of the sales limit”,

but

“with a view to any person obtaining financial gain.”

What is the definition of “financial gain”? Might we have a situation in which someone buys 50,000 tickets for a certain concert and sells them in such a way that financial gain would be difficult to determine?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Mr Evans.

May I offer begrudging congratulations to the Minister on implementing yet another measure from the Labour manifesto, where we set out with a clarity that was perhaps lacking in the Conservative manifesto that we would implement anti-bot legislation to stop professional ticket touts ripping off thousands of fans in this country? The Minister did not put on the record her thanks to Professor Waterson, but let me put on the record our own thanks to him for his excellent review.

We shall not divide the Committee on the draft regulations, because the measure was such a clear and popular one in our manifesto, but we encourage the Minister to go a little further and to look at what else we promised in our manifesto. We said clearly that we would like to go beyond the recommendations that Professor Waterson proposed, which were good, but which we thought could be strengthened still further.

With that in mind, I shall ask the Minister a few questions. First, has she considered the recommendation by Professor Waterson that large-scale sellers on secondary platforms should be reclassified as traders? If someone is classified as a trader, a number of protections kick in under the Consumer Rights Act. At the moment, those protections are not available in the case of secondary platforms. It is therefore a very important question, and the Committee will want to hear the answer from the Minister.

Secondly, has the Minister considered Professor Waterson’s recommendation that such organisations should have to attain a licence to sell a large number of tickets? At the moment, they are making enormous profits from the Government’s rather hands-off, slipshod and laissez-faire approach. We think that that should change, and that Professor Waterson’s recommendation is important. We would like to hear the Minister’s conclusion, having considered the matter now that she has been in position for some time.

The third question is about the secondary ticketing market through companies such as Ticketbis and Viagogo, which continue to leave fans open to large-scale fraud. I understand that tickets for World cup and premier league games are on sale on Ticketbis without the relevant information required by the Consumer Rights Act. This will shock you, Mr Evans, but some tickets for the World cup final are coming in at more than £20,000. The Minister shakes her head, but she is the Minister, and I think the Committee would like to know what the Government are doing to ensure that fans are not being scammed.

[Ian Murray]

As a fan of Heart of Midlothian football club, I have never suffered from the inability to gain tickets to big matches, but there is a report today that some tickets for the champions league final on Saturday—Liverpool versus Real Madrid—with a face value of £61 are selling for nearly £15,000 on secondary ticket sites. Not only is that detrimental to fans who wish to purchase those tickets, but someone is making an awful lot of money.

[Liam Byrne]

I can scarcely believe what my hon. Friend has told the Committee. It is a very good example of the profit margins being made by unscrupulous traders, who are being allowed to get away scot-free by this careless Government.

My fourth question is about an important health and safety matter. As the Minister knows, at the moment secondary ticketing websites allow tickets in the away end of football stadiums to be acquired by home fans. That undermines safety regulations that have been in force in stadiums for decades. I did not hear what the Government propose to do about that. At the moment, the Premier League is describing organisations such as Ticketbis and other platforms as unauthorised sellers of tickets for games, yet they continue to operate with extraordinary impunity and in a way that completely flouts the protections that this House put in place in the Consumer Rights Act. We would like to hear what the Minister will do to bring order to this chaos.

Data Protection Bill [Lords] (Sixth sitting)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Public Bill Committees

The position in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill reflects the reality that in leaving the EU we will be ending the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU over our domestic courts while also allowing judges to take account of post-exit CJEU judgments. This is similar to how the UK courts can currently take into account judgments made by courts from other jurisdictions, although of course we recognise that as the text of our law and EU law will at the outset be the same or substantially similar in many cases, it is highly likely in practice that our courts may find it helpful to look at the CJEU judgments, and it is perfectly legitimate and sensible for them to do so.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech earlier this month that as a country we may have to stay under the jurisdiction of the ECJ for the purposes of organisations such as Euratom and other EU-wide organisations that the UK may wish to remain part of. Is the Minister saying that that is a possibility with regard to data protection laws in this legislation?

[Margot James]

The future of our membership of the European Data Protection Board will be subject to negotiations. I cannot prejudge how those negotiations will develop and finalise in respect of our membership of that important body.

[Ian Murray]

Am I right in saying that the Minister is not ruling it out as part of the legislation?

[Margot James]

I would not rule it out, but the negotiations are between two parties, so however much we may wish to maintain our membership of the European data protection board, that might not be something that the EU will grant us. As I say, it is a matter for negotiation and I am sure things will become clearer over the next 12 months. To take an approach now that would require our courts to follow future case law of the CJEU, even if only in some areas, would place limitations on the discretion and independence of our courts.

Cambridge Analytica: Data Privacy

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the hon. Lady very strongly on the premise of her question. The first thing that we will do is listen very carefully to the report of the Select Committee, which as I said at the start, is doing excellent work in this area. We insist that all companies comply properly with what the Select Committee says, and I think that it has plenty more work to do, as we are just discovering. We will not rest until we put this right, because, frankly, the quality of the liberal democracy that we live in depends on having a high-quality political discourse. That means making sure that online, as well as offline, we can have exchanges that are robust but based on reasonableness and an objective truth.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The allegations from the weekend that were uncovered by a brave journalist involved Facebook—it involved Facebook because that is the one that has been caught. Will the Minister assure the House that he will be calling every large company that may be attempting to subvert our democracy into his office to ask them whether they have been involved in any of these data breaches and whether they will come clean, so that we can be confident that our data are protected?

[Matt Hancock]

I hope that they have heard that, and I think it would be very sensible if they did.

Dr Elsie Inglis and Women’s Contribution to World War One

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Dr Elsie Inglis and the contribution of women to World War One.

As always, it is a great pleasure to be in a debate with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocated time for this important debate in this important week for remembering Dr Elsie Inglis. She was a truly historic and remarkable woman—an Edinburgh woman, no less, and very proud of her roots. This week is the centenary of her death and of the state funeral that she was afforded, which will be re-enacted tomorrow.

Who was Dr Elsie Inglis? Born in India in 1864, she was the daughter of John Inglis, a chief commissioner in the Indian civil service. She studied medicine at Dr Sophia Jex-Blake’s then newly opened Edinburgh School of Medicine for Women and was one of the first women in Scotland to finish higher education, although she was not allowed to graduate. She went on to complete her training under Sir William Macewen at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary.

The now famous exhortation,

“My good lady, go home and sit still”,

was the response that Dr Elsie Inglis received when she asked the War Office whether female doctors and surgeons could serve in frontline hospitals in world war one. At that time and for many years to come, that was the attitude that women faced in making vital contributions to society.

Despite attempts to repress her efforts—and those of many other women—to contribute, Elsie did not, in the words of the exhortation, “sit still”. Instead, she persevered, setting up the Scottish women’s hospitals, which were all-female units that played a vital role with Britain’s allies, including the French, the Belgians and, particularly, the Serbs.

Elsie was 50 when war broke out and she defied British Government advice by setting up female-staffed field hospitals close to the frontlines. She travelled to France within three months of the outbreak of war, and the Abbaye de Royaumont hospital, containing some 200 beds, was in place by the end of 1914. That was followed by a second hospital, at Villers Cotterets, in 1917. Tens of thousands were helped by the hospitals she set up in France, Serbia, Ukraine and Romania, acting with the support of the French and Serbian Governments.

Prior to that, Elsie was a strong advocate of women’s rights and a leading member of the suffragette movement in Scotland, playing a notable role in the establishment of the Scottish women’s suffragette federation in 1906. She fought energetically against prejudice and for the social and political emancipation of women, and had already made a huge impact in Edinburgh by working in some of the poorest parts of the city with women and babies who were in desperate need of help. Selflessly, she often waived the fees of patients who could not afford to pay.

Politically, Elsie was a staunch campaigner for votes for women, and her involvement in the suffragette movement prompted her to raise money to send out to female doctors, nurses, orderlies and drivers on the frontline. She recorded many great achievements, including setting up 14 hospitals during the war—staffed by 1,500 Scottish women, all volunteers. Most notably, Elsie raised the equivalent of £53 million in today’s money to fund greatly needed medical care for those on the frontline. Her efforts reached across the waters on another level, attracting volunteers from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. As I am sure everyone would agree, that showed fierce independence and capability from women who were well ahead of their time.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate and on ensuring that it coincides with the anniversary. This type of discussion, debate and acknowledgement is significant, given the issues that he mentioned. For example, we must not only pay tribute to the many voluntary detachments of women in the first world war from all across the UK, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, but ensure that future generations never forget the contributions that they made.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Commemorating the centenary is easy, but we need to ensure not only that the education and commemorations run right through society, in schools and workplaces, but that all four corners of the United Kingdom commemorate the contribution of women—and indeed, of everyone, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice in giving their lives.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he agree that we need to learn lessons not necessarily only from the extraordinary contribution that women made during the great war and the social strides that they made in that time, but from what happened during the peace? It is certainly the case that many of the advances retreated in the immediate post-war era and into the 1920s, and in many ways women were set back to where they were in 1914. As we approach the centenary of the end of the great war, perhaps we need to give thought to what happened shortly thereafter.

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. As the hon. Gentleman said, we should commemorate not just the contribution that women made during the wars, but the contribution that they made subsequently. Indeed, in this very building, Emily Davison is commemorated downstairs for her contribution to the suffragette movement. I am very much of the view that if more women had been running the world, perhaps the great wars would never have happened.

[Dr Murrison]

I think the hon. Gentleman might have misunderstood my point. In the years following the great war, many advances that women had made and the position that they had established for themselves in society sadly took a step back. People such as Dr Inglis, who had become very prominent, were in fact told to take a back seat, particularly when the men came back from the war.

[Ian Murray]

Absolutely. Women are still fighting the same battles today. The advancement that they made during the great war was almost forgotten, until the second world war, of course, when women again played a significant role. We need to remember their contribution not just during the war efforts, but in between. That is part of the story of the commemorations and the story we should tell of our recent history.

The women’s dedication to help thousands of badly injured men in dire conditions is commendable. In Serbia in particular, the typhus epidemic had gripped the country, and without those women many tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of lives would not have been saved. Serbia was home to the first Scottish women’s hospitals field unit in 1914. Despite the life-threatening conditions of the typhus epidemic, to which four staff from the Scottish women’s hospitals had lost their lives, Elsie went to serve in the hospital on the frontline. Sent out to look after 300 beds, Elsie and her team were in fact faced with 550 beds filled with injured and ill soldiers. With a dreadful lack of sanitation in the overcrowded hospitals, Elsie faced the Serbian officials and firmly refused to let the overcrowding endanger the lives of patients and nurses. A true heroine, she went from negotiating with Serbian officials to finding innovative ways to deal with the overflow patients at the hospital, without a second thought for her own safety. Her colleagues took the same approach.

Even after the beginning of the great retreat, in which Serbia was invaded by the Austrian army, Elsie and many of her volunteers refused to give up. Again, she defied demands from the British Government to return home. Despite finding out that she had cancer—I stress that she had cancer as well—she set up two more field hospitals. In 1915, she was captured and repatriated, but still did not rest until Serbian soldiers were guaranteed safe passage out of Serbia. Once this safe passage had been granted and the soldiers arrived in Newcastle, Elsie battled through the pain of her own illness to greet them. Sadly, she passed away on 26 November 1917.

It has been said that Dr Elsie Inglis

“made Florence Nightingale look like a part-time care assistant”.

Her fierce dedication to helping others leading up to the great war shows that Elsie really was a role model in her own right. I am pleased that my constituents in Edinburgh and people in the rest of Scotland have such an outstanding figure to look up to and aspire to. Elsie broke down barriers and proved time and again that women will always be an integral part of society. She continually praised the work carried out by her many volunteers, refusing to think of her effort as any greater than theirs. Elsie never asked them to do something that she would not be willing to do herself. She took part in the most menial tasks and always worked as part of the unit.

Elsie’s humbleness about the great things that she achieved is why I feel so strongly about remembering her legacy and giving her and other women who contributed to world war one the recognition and commendation they deserve. We should commemorate and celebrate her life and work.

On 29 November, 1917, Elsie Inglis was buried in Edinburgh following a state funeral at St Giles’ Cathedral, with the flags of Great Britain and Serbia placed on her coffin, the lilies of France around her, and the torn banners of Scotland’s history hanging over her head. She was later awarded high honours by France, Russia and Serbia. Indeed, in Serbia, Dr Inglis and her colleagues are regarded as heroes and saints, with 17 statues to her in Serbia alone.

The UK should properly recognise Dr Inglis and the other unacknowledged British heroines who set up the Scottish women’s hospitals during the first world war. To mark the centenary of her death, I am pleased that this year the City of Edinburgh Council has decided to name a street after her and that the Edinburgh Evening News is running a fundraising campaign to have a statue of Elsie erected in her beloved Edinburgh.

The Scottish Women’s Hospitals Trust, led by my constituent Ian McFarlane and his trustees, aims to work with the Serbian Government and the Edinburgh Evening News to get the funds to build this well-deserved and much-overdue monument. A private ceremony was held at her grave on Sunday to mark the centenary of her death. As a mark of her growing reputation, a commemoration will also take place at St Giles’ cathedral tomorrow, on the same day as her state funeral 100 years ago.

But what about the countless other women who poured compassion and dedication into saving lives during the great war? November 2017 also marks the centenary of the foundation of the Women’s Royal Naval Service. The Royal Navy became the first of the three services officially to recruit women. Expansion of the wartime Navy led the Wrens to take on tasks that the Royal Navy had previously considered beyond women’s capabilities. Women’s contributions to the war effort went from strength to strength, and many Wrens were involved in planning naval operations, including the D-day landings in June 1944.

In December 1941, the Government passed the National Service Act 1941, which allowed the conscription of women into war work or the armed forces. In 1944, some 74,000 women were doing more than 200 different jobs. Of the courageous Wrens, 303 were killed on wartime service; we should pay tribute to them and all their efforts. On 7 July 1917, the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps became the British Army’s first all-female unit. More than 57,000 women served from July 1917 to 1921, including 10,000 in France.

I would like to recognise in particular the contribution of two great Scottish women to the WAAC: Alexandra “Mona” Chalmers Watson and Dame Helen Gwynne-Vaughan. Mona was from a high-achieving Edinburgh family and was the first woman to graduate from Edinburgh University as a doctor. Helen, who studied botany at King’s College London, had deep family roots in Ayrshire and Aberdeen. As well as playing leading roles in the WAAC, they fought hard against the patriarchy to show that women must have a more equal place in society and in the world.

It is also 100 years since Passchendaele, one of the most notorious battles of the first world war, which the House commemorated last month. In just three and a half months of fighting, an estimated 550,000 Allied and German troops were killed, wounded or lost. Around 90,000 British and Commonwealth soldiers went missing: 50,000 were buried without being identified, and 42,000 were never recovered from the fields of Flanders, which turned into an ocean of mud.

As well as paying tribute to those who lost their lives, I would like to recognise the contribution of Sister Kate Luard, who served as a nurse in the second Boer war as well as being head nurse at a casualty station on the western front. Sister Luard often described her work in letters from Passchendaele as “UBC”—“utter bloody chaos”. Despite the chaos, she persisted, saving countless lives. I am glad that her efforts were recognised; she was awarded the Royal Red Cross and bar. I cannot imagine what it must have been like to serve so close to the frontline under such enormous pressures, but her letters are a small insight into the passion and dedication that it must have taken to do so:

“The uproar is almost stupefying. They burst on two sides—streams of shrapnel which were quite hot when you picked them up. They came everywhere, through our canvas huts. Bursting shells are an ugly sight—black or yellow smoke and streams of jagged shells flying violently in all directions. It doesn’t look as if we should ever sleep again.”

More than 100,000 women joined Britain’s armed forces during the war. From ambulance driving to translating, women served Britain in a variety of ways; I will highlight a few more. Elizabeth Knocker and Mairi Chisholm set up their own first aid post close to the Belgian frontline at Pervyse in November 1914. Mary O’Connell Bianconi went to France in August 1917 as a member of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, where she worked as a driver in the St Omer ambulance convoy. After an air raid in July 1918, Molly and six of her driver colleagues drove their ambulances to pick up the wounded. Dame Katharine Furse joined the Voluntary Aid Detachment in 1909. On the outbreak of the first world war, she was chosen to be head of the first VAD unit to be sent to France. In 1917 she became the director of the newly formed Women’s Royal Naval Service.

We all know the immeasurable contribution women made back home—everything from working in munitions factories to building guns. I wish that I could identify by name each and every woman who made an enormous contribution to the great war. Unfortunately, time does not allow, but those unmentioned are by no means unnoticed. It is hard to imagine that women with such passion and hunger to help, and who spoke up when they were told to be quiet, could ever be forgotten. They most definitely helped to pave the way for future women to crack the glass ceiling.

Some important centenaries approach next year. To name a few, April 2018 will mark the formation of the Women’s Royal Air Force, an invaluable asset to the RAF in which around 32,000 women enrolled in its first two years. May 2018 marks the day that nine members of the Queen Mary’s Army Auxiliary Corps became the first British women to die on active military service when their trench was hit by a German bomb in Abbeville, France.

Many of the women whom I have mentioned saved lives through innovative thinking, putting the wellbeing of others above their own safety. They often worked under fire, in unthinkable conditions with little sleep and few resources. They offered a helping hand not because they wanted praise, but because they had valuable experience and skills to offer to those who were also putting their lives on the line for their country. I am extremely pleased to have had this opportunity to ensure that we continue to give them the recognition that they deserve, and I hope that their legacy will live on.

I will finish where I started by reading out what is on the gravestone of Dr Elsie Inglis, who is buried in Dean cemetery in Edinburgh:

“To the beloved and honoured memory of Elsie Maud Inglis. Born 1864, died on active service 1917. Surgeon, philanthropist, patriot, a leader of the movement for the political emancipation of women and founder of the Scottish Women’s Hospitals for foreign service. Mors janua vitae”—

meaning “Death is the gateway to life”.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their wonderful contributions and the moving stories they told from their personal experience. What we see from the debate—from Dr Elsie Inglis, Mary Barbour and Florence Green, whom the Minister mentioned; from Plymouth to Wales to Glasgow to Edinburgh, from Barnsley to Caithness to Northern Ireland and right across the country; from the RAF, the Army and the Royal Navy—is that the contribution that these dedicated, passionate and often modest women made to the war effort, and subsequently, without any regard to their own safety, shows that we owe them a great deal of respect and remembrance. Perhaps, if someone from the BBC is watching, they might want to change “Dad’s Army” to “Mum’s Army” and make a new comedy series about the contribution of women to the war effort.

We will see many centenaries this year and next in the run-up to the centenary of the end of the first world war. For everyone who made an effort, particularly for women, we will do two things: thank them for the service they gave this country and say that we will always remember them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Dr Elsie Inglis and the contribution of women to World War One.