Sir David Attenborough: Permanent National Monument

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Is “dinosaurs” the word you are looking for?

[Ian Murray]

Your words, not mine, Sir Roger.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there.

Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today.

Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors.

Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change.

Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation.

We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling.

I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present.

As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom.

Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls.

This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story.

Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words:

“Is this how our story is due to end?”

I very much doubt it.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber?

Question put and agreed to.

Television Selection Services and Electronic Programme Guides: Regulation

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2026 Written Statements

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

Following the statement I published on 24 February 2026, I can now confirm to the House that my Department has today laid the following statutory instruments before Parliament:

The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026; and

The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026.

The Television Selection Services (Designation) Regulations 2026

This SI specifically designates those television selection services that will be captured by the new prominence regime introduced by the Media Act 2024.

To support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters, the Media Act introduced a new prominence regime into the Communications Act 2003 that will require particular TV platforms—referred to in the Act as “regulated television selection services”—to carry and give appropriate prominence to designated public service broadcaster video-on-demand apps. Once commenced, this new regime will ensure that UK viewers can continue to find the public service media content they value on-demand.

In order to be captured by the new prominence framework, a television selection service must be designated by the Secretary of State via statutory instrument, following advice from Ofcom. Ofcom issued its draft advice on 22 July 2025, which it consulted on, and then issued its final statement on 16 December 2025. I confirmed on 24 February that, having thoroughly reviewed Ofcom’s advice and considered all stakeholder responses, I was minded to agree to Ofcom’s recommended list of designations set out in its final report. I am now bringing forward this SI to make those designations.

This SI marks an important milestone in the implementation of the Media Act 2024 and concludes the Department’s work on the designation of which television selection services are in-scope of the new prominence regime.

The Regulated Electronic Programme Guide (Prescribed Description and Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2026

This SI was announced in the same February statement referred to above, along with the On-demand Programme Services (Tier 1 Services) Regulations. The SI updates the meaning of a regulated electronic programme guide (EPG), extending vital audience protections and accessibility requirements to newer TV guide services, such as Sky Glass and Freely. Any TV channel that can be accessed through a regulated EPG will also be within Ofcom’s remit and therefore required to have a broadcast licence.



Furthermore, the regulations will address a regulatory loophole in the existing framework whereby some TV guide services fall outside regulation despite being easily accessible through regulated services.

[HCWS33]

Animal Testing

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, in this important debate. I thank Members for their contributions. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) for being a doughty campaigner for not just her constituents, but all their pets and animals. She has done that since she came into this place in 2024, and she deserves a great deal of respect and admiration for it. I also thank each and every one of the many people who took the time to sign the e-petition and those who are in the Public Gallery today.

I look forward to the day when we can finally bring an end to animal testing and the use of dogs in scientific research. Unfortunately, that day is not quite yet with us. Our direction of travel is very clear: we want to replace animals in science wherever possible, which was why our 2024 manifesto committed us to partnering with scientists, industry and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing. Our approach to achieve that is set out in last November’s “Replacing animals in science” strategy, which many Members mentioned.

The strategy is groundbreaking. It brings together funding, infrastructure and regulatory partners so that validated alternatives can move from the lab into routine use safely and at pace. Many Members have talked about pace, which is the key issue here. However, for now, the carefully regulated use of animals, including dogs, in scientific research unfortunately remains.

First, I will expand on the ambition to phase out animal research. Secondly, although we are not yet fully ready to end testing on dogs and other animals, given the current position of science, I will set out the plan that we will put in place to do so. The petition asked the Government to accelerate the move to human-relevant alternative methodologies, and that is exactly the purpose of the strategy. It is about speeding up development and validation, increasing uptake in practice, and working with regulators so that when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used.

The strategy is not just words; it is backed by £75 million of funding to accelerate safe and effective alternative methods. I will break that down shortly, given that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) asked about it. We are already delivering at pace by working with regulators and partners to streamline routes for validated alternatives to be accepted, backing researchers with new funding through UK Research and Innovation, and supporting the NC3Rs, which works nationally and internationally to drive the uptake of alternative technologies, ensuring that advances are reflected in policy and practice, and that regulations on animal research are seen through.

Nearly £16 million of new investment has been announced through the Medical Research Council, Wellcome and Innovate UK, working in partnership with NC3Rs to accelerate the development of human disease models. The MRC has also launched a £20 million funding competition to establish a pre-clinical translational human in vitro models hub, and Innovate UK has committed a further £2 million for non-animal methods that have the potential to reduce the use of dogs and non-human primates in assessing the pre-clinical pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular safety of new medicines.

We are building the collaboration and infrastructure needed to scale up alternatives into everyday research and development and safety assessments where it is safe and effective to do so. We are also working to increase regulatory confidence so that, when alternatives are proven, they are accepted and used consistently, and at pace, in practice.

We are consistently pushing change. In 2024, the use of dogs in experimental procedures decreased by 29% compared with 2023, as many Members said, and the broader trend is towards reducing animal use as alternatives continue to improve, but we are not complacent, and we should not be complacent. We want to get that figure as close to zero as possible.

As the strategy sets out, we are working towards a world in which the use of animals in science is eliminated in all but very exceptional circumstances. That will be achieved by creating a research and innovation system that replaces animals with alternative methods whenever possible, but does not prevent necessary research and safety testing when no alternative is available. By streamlining the process for bringing alternatives forward, the Government will accelerate our transition away from animal use while continuing to support crucial research and innovation. As the science advances, we will use every opportunity to phase out the use of animals whenever we can.

I will run through some of the issues around the strategy and also address the comments that hon. Members made. Lord Vallance is responsible for this area in the House of Lords—I am the responsible Minister in the House of Commons—and he has probably the most advanced scientific brain that I have ever come across in government. He said something that I think is worth emphasising about this strategy:

“This Government is proud to lead a new era in advancing innovative and effective approaches to scientific research and development. We are committed to delivering on our manifesto pledge to ‘partner with scientists, industry, and civil society as we work towards the phasing out of animal testing’”—

I have reflected on some of that already. He also said:

“we aim to establish the UK as a world leader in developing and adopting alternatives to animal testing”.

We will align with international standards and we will say more about that at the end of this year. He continued:

“Our vision is for a world where the use of animals in research and development is eliminated…Enabling the properly regulated use of animals, while we move away from animal testing, is essential to improving the health and lives of humans and animals”.

Nobody in our country of animal lovers—we have many animal lovers here, including me—wants to see animals suffering. Our plan will support work to end animal testing and to roll out alternatives as soon as it is safe and effective to do so. That road map that will ensure that the Government, businesses and animal-welfare groups can work together to find those alternatives to animal testing faster and more effectively.

There are 26 actions in the strategy. You will be pleased to hear, Mr Stuart, that I will not run through them all, but many hon. Members will know the document.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I thank the Minister for setting out the progress that the Government are making but, from what I have seen of the “Replacing animals in science” strategy, its targets focus on reducing or eliminating experiments on certain types of animals. Does he agree that we actually need to be ending experiments on all animals, as has been expressed by Members from all parties today? Will he therefore engage with campaigners arguing for Herbie’s law, who have suggested a more ambitious strategy that would achieve exactly that?

[Ian Murray]

We do not disagree with the principle of Herbie’s law; indeed, that is what the strategy is trying to achieve. The challenge for the Government, of course, is to balance that against what is achievable and what can be validated, not just in the UK but across the international community. We want this country to be a world leader in eliminating animal research, and it is pretty clear, on the front page of the strategy, that we wish to take those 26 actions on.

Let me continue as that will help to answer the hon. Member’s question. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) challenged us to say what the strategy has delivered so far. We have moved from commitments towards trying to deliver. With the actions under way across discovery, research, validation, regulatory decision making and governance, and indeed the money to support some of that, delivery is being supported through co-ordinated action across the Office for Life Sciences, NC3Rs, UKRI bodies and regulators. The MRC has launched the £20 million fund to which I referred, and Innovate UK and NC3Rs continue to work in partnership to advance development. In March 2026, the MHRA published new guidance setting out how applications for medicines that use non-animal methods will be assessed and fast-tracked. A lot of the strategy has therefore already been put in place, but the strategy cannot be just words; it needs action as well.

Let me run through some of the challenges and questions raised by hon. Members in what has been a tremendously good debate for examining the issues. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran chairs the relevant all-party parliamentary group, the aims of which are:

“To build cross-party support for replacing animal experiments in medical research with human-specific methods, working closely with the scientific community to identify opportunities, barriers and put forward constructive recommendations to government.”

Those are almost the same aims as what the Government are trying to achieve through the strategy. We and the APPG are aligned in the outcome we want. We look forward to continuing to work with her and the other APPG members to get it delivered.

I want to say something for clarity, because my hon. Friend raised this in some of what she said—we heard it from many hon. Members—and there has been a little confusion not just in this debate, but in previous debates. The testing of cosmetics was banned in 1998 and the testing of household products was banned in 2015. Progress has been slower than we would have wanted, but we hope that the new strategy will speed things up and give certainty to industry.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned botox, as did the hon. Member for Huntingdon and, in an intervention, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). Botox is not a cosmetic, so it is not covered by existing regulations on cosmetics, as we heard, but the strategy sets an aim to apply only validated alternative methods for testing the potency of botox by the end of 2027. The MHRA now accepts an alternative for most common strengths of botox, so we hope to see the practice phased out within the next 18 months or so.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon gave us a whole list of questions, some of which are the responsibility of the Home Office, so if I do not cover them all, I will ensure that he gets a detailed analysis from that Department. We will provide an update later this year about the international perspectives, because at the moment we are working out and scoping what those perspectives look like. He asked about funding. Out of the £75 million, £20 million is for the translational hub and £30 million is for the UK centre for the validation of alternative methods. It does not cover NC3R’s funding.

Tomorrow, we are discussing KPIs at an official level—the hon. Gentleman challenged us about what tomorrow’s meeting will do. The matter will then go to a ministerial meeting, which happens every quarter, with the next one due on 8 July. He also talked about criminalisation. I will get the Home Office to detail a response to him in writing, but while the law criminalises interfering or planning to interfere with key national infrastructure, it does not cover the email situation he talked about.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked if any consideration was given to the reviewing, reworking and revoking of licences. Again, that is a Home Office responsibility, so I will get a full response about how it monitors licences. She also challenged us on the use of AI, and we need to look at that. Many advances in medical research are happening with AI enhancement at the moment, including on motor neurone disease and how the brain operates, as I know from my constituency. AI and advances in technology will be a key part of how we phase out the use of animal testing.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) asked if the regulatory body should be paid for by the industry, but that is not the case. The regulatory body charges for its licensing; it is not paid for directly. That does not amount to the industry funding the regulator. It is standard practice for people to buy the regulatory services that are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) challenged us to say more than warm words. That is what I think the strategy is about and why we are advancing it rather quickly. The dates by which we need to achieve many of the issues are in the strategy.

I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for his comments. I appreciate the fact that he welcomes the strategy, although I know he wants us to go quicker, faster and with more pace, as many Members have said. He raised the issue of Herbie’s law by 2035, but we have to ensure that replacements put in place for that to happen in an orderly fashion.

My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) asked us for a fourth R—“replace”. That is what investment in the strategy is all about, and it is why the money is available.

The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) talks to his cats—interesting—although I do not know whether he ever gets a response. I hope he is not opening up a debate in Westminster Hall about whether someone is a dog person or a cat person, because that could take us to—I am extending the pun even further—a rabbit hole that we might not want to go down.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) certainly is a cat lover. I believe she has a cat called Clement Catlee, and another called Chairman Meow—is that right?

[Johanna Baxter]

Mo Meowlam!

[Ian Murray]

Who has the cat called Chairman Meow, then? It must be somebody else. My hon. Friend was right to mention the Competition and Markets Authority investigation into vet costs. We want to achieve our manifesto commitment on that issue; it was a very clear part of our manifesto and we all want to see the same outcomes from that. The hon. Member for Yeovil mentioned AI and asked us about the action so far, which I have run through.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), we agree with the principle of Herbie’s law. We cannot set arbitrary timelines for things that we may not be able to achieve, but we have set some strong ones already, including the 35% reduction by 2030. If we can go faster and further, of course we will; it will depend on whether we can get validated scientific research in place. We will write to her on the finer details about whether we have those 22 inspectors in place.

Let me go into why we would not put Herbie’s law on a statutory footing. In line with international practice, we are using the three baskets approach to group animal tests and prioritise their replacements—this is mainly about dogs. Basket one covers areas where there is a mature replacement tech: for example, the strategy aims by the end of 2026—this year—to use only alternative methods for skin irritation testing. Basket two covers areas where there are medium-term replacements: we aim to replace the use of fish acute toxicity tests for chemicals regulated by REACH, the regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, by the end of 2028. The strategy does therefore have defined end points, where they can be defined. Basket three covers complex end points and long-term aims. By the end of 2035, we aim to include alternative methods and regulations for endocrine disruption tests—I do not know what that means, but maybe one of the vets in the Chamber can tell us. Those aims are not on a statutory footing, but they are Government commitments. They are gateways that we want to go through with the three baskets approach.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand the timetable that the Minister is outlining, which is great, but there are still millions of tests being undertaken every year unnecessarily. We know about the forced swim and LD50 tests. Could the Minister outline a bit more the review of the generic project licences? How can we issue a licence for a generic project when we do not know about it? How can we evaluate and assess the risks there?

[Ian Murray]

We will write to my hon. Friend with the details on those individual projects—the regulations are run by the Home Office, so I will write to her on those three specific issues and make sure that everyone in the Chamber has a copy.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) said that the scale of the suffering prevented should overwhelmingly outweigh the suffering involved in testing. I think we would all agree with that. That is exactly the proportionate way in which we need to look at the issue. It is undeniable that huge pharmaceutical and medical progress has been made on the back of animal testing—the covid vaccine was a good example of alleviating suffering—but he is right to challenge us on that moral issue. That is why the strategy is in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) is right that replacing animals in testing is the right thing to do and that the public want to see action. We agree; that is why we are taking action. The strategy should seed that innovation. It is not just about the Government saying, “This is what we want to achieve.” Hopefully, the industry and innovation will seed that through. We have seen that with other advancements, such as the ban on cosmetics testing that my hon. Friend talked about. Hopefully, that will seed industry to move forward and find innovative ways through, backed by the Government strategy.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), listed the advances in life science innovation; that is tremendous progress, but we need to go further and faster to move away from animal testing. He posed that challenge and we agree with him. He also made the important point that we have a strict regulatory environment for animal testing in this country. I will come on to that in my conclusion, but it is one of strictest in the world, and rightly so.

The hon. Member rightly challenged us by pointing out the danger that if we were to cut animal testing off now, it would go overseas, and in that case we would see a whole raft of additional animals suffering in places that do not have the same standards. That is not to diminish the issue. While we have testing in this country and regulate it to those standards, we should be making sure that the standards are met, notwithstanding all the issues that have been raised by Members today. However, there is a real danger that if we were to cut that off now, without alternatives in place, it would go overseas—an issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), also raised.

We will have to come back to the hon. Member for Winchester on dual licensing for veterinary use. There is an issue with the way in which animal testing works with regard to the licensing arrangements that he set out. Animal testing is also used for the veterinary side of medicines and advancements in technology, and we must be cognisant of that.

I appreciate the tone in which the shadow Minister spoke. There has been a lot done in this area; many Members have mentioned the word “pace”, and that is what we want to see, but the previous Government took a number of actions. Is a 35% reduction by 2030 achievable? We think it is. Many would say that that is not ambitious enough and some would say that it is too ambitious, but we do want to achieve it. That is why the strategy is in place, and why money is a key part of it.

Using animals in science requires us to adhere continually to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. That is reflected in the UK’s world-leading, robust regulation of the use of animals in science through the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. That Act specifies that animals can only be used in science for specific, limited purposes where there are no alternatives, where the number of animals used is the minimum needed to achieve the scientific benefit, and where the potential harm to animals is limited to the absolute minimum. Those requirements are known as the three Rs: replacement, reduction and refinement, as we have discussed.

Dogs are a specifically protected species under ASPA. Projects must justify why animals are needed, why dogs specifically are needed, and why the numbers and procedures are necessary. Projects are only authorised where that justification is robust. The e-petition rightly mentions the conditions in which dogs are kept, and I want to address those claims—not to dismiss them, but to show that the regulatory system in the UK works. The UK has some of the most stringent regulations in the world governing how animals are bred, housed and cared for, with legally enforceable standards, regular announced and unannounced inspections, and a clear requirement to minimise pain, suffering and distress.

The use of animals in science is highly regulated. All establishments are required to have dedicated individuals, including veterinary surgeons, with legal responsibilities for the care and welfare of animals, and an ethical review body that reviews any proposals for the use of animals and promotes the three Rs of animal use. The reality is that the technology is not yet advanced enough for alternative methods to replace the use of animals completely. For now, animal testing and research plays an important role in supporting the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies for humans and animals—for example, the development of the covid-19 vaccine.

Many Members have mentioned failure rates. Animals are used to assess how potential new medicines affect biological systems, ensuring that drugs are safe and effective before human trials. The petition points out that 90% of drugs that appear safe and effective in animals do not go on to receive FDA approval. However, to say that 92% of drugs fail in human trials despite being tested on animals is to ignore all those candidate drugs that are tested on animals and found not to be suitable to progress to human trials. That is the issue that we are trying to resolve. Animal studies are only one part of a layered system that screens out unsafe or ineffective substances before they ever reach volunteers and patients.

Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the MHRA; that is another international issue we have to resolve. Although the MHRA does not require all medicines to be tested on two species, safety testing in a second species is required for most drugs, with dogs being one of the species that can be used. The key proposal in the petition calls for the end of testing on dogs and other animals for the development of products for human use.

None of us wants dogs to be used in research, despite how carefully animal welfare is regulated in this country. However, an immediate prohibition would undermine the UK’s ability to test and regulate new medicines and vaccines for humans and, indeed, for the animals themselves. We would be unable to meet our international regulatory requirements for drug safety testing, which would prevent virtually all first-in-human trials in the UK from happening, compromise our capacity to respond rapidly to future health threats, result in slower access to new treatments for UK patients and slow the innovation required to remove animal testing altogether. That is the key challenge that we are seeking to achieve with the strategy.

We want a future where animals are used only in very exceptional circumstances and we are acting as fast as we can to get there through the “Replacing animals in science” strategy and its delivery. We will keep driving the shift to validated alternative methods wherever possible, while maintaining the robust protections that keep people, animals and the environment safe in the meantime. I thank Members once again for their insightful contributions to the debate; I am sure we will have many more in the future, and I look forward to working together as the strategy progresses.

UK Biobank Data

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the use of UK Biobank data.

UK Biobank is a non-profit charity, independent of Government. The Biobank brings together data, kindly donated by its volunteer participants, that is shared with accredited researchers globally to make significant scientific discoveries that improve patient health. That includes discovering genes that affect the risk of heart disease or cancer, identifying new ways of predicting dementia, identifying early warning signs for cancers, understanding immunity to covid-19, and work towards earlier detection of Parkinson’s. It is one of the most successful and important studies of its type, and it continues to benefit patients in the UK and around the world. We are all grateful to those individuals who are part of this landmark study that is so important for all of our health.

On Monday 20 April, the UK Biobank charity informed the Government that it had identified that its data had been advertised for sale by several sellers on Alibaba’s e-commerce platforms in China. Biobank told us that three listings that appeared to sell UK Biobank participation data had been identified. At least one of the three datasets appeared to contain data from all 500,000 UK Biobank volunteers. Additional listings offered support for applying for legitimate access to UK Biobank data or analytical support for researchers who already have access to the data. I want to reassure the House up front, however, that Biobank has advised that this data did not contain participants’ names, addresses, contact details or telephone numbers. The Government have spoken to the vendor today and they do not believe that there were any purchases from the three listings before they were taken down.

Once the Government were made aware of the situation, we took immediate action to protect participants’ data. First, we worked with Biobank, the Chinese Government and the vendor to ensure that the three listings that UK Biobank informed us included participant data had been removed. I want to thank the Chinese Government for the speed and seriousness with which they worked with us to help remove the listings and the ongoing work to remove any further listings. Secondly, we ensured that the Biobank charity revoked access to the three research institutions identified as the source of the information. Thirdly, we have asked that the Biobank charity pauses further access to its data until it has put in place a technical solution to prevent data from its current platform from being downloaded in this way again. I can confirm to the House that this pause is now in place. UK Biobank has also referred itself to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

We are still working with Biobank to ascertain from it the specific detail of what has happened. We have asked it to investigate how this data ended up for sale online as a priority, but I wanted to ensure that the House was aware of the incident and the action that the Government are taking.

Officials have been in regular contact with UK Biobank since the Government were made aware of the issue on Monday. I personally spoke to the chief executive and chair last night, alongside the Minister of State for Science and the Minister for Health Innovation and Safety. We have received assurances that the charity will conduct a rapid board-level review of the safeguards in place for accessing its data.

As I mentioned, in the short term, Biobank will suspend downloads from its platform. That is until a new system is brought in to control analysis downloads to approved researchers and will significantly enhance data access controls and safeguards. We have advised the chair and chief executive of Biobank to write to all participants as soon as possible to ensure that they are aware of what has happened.

In summary, and to be clear to the House and to those people affected, the charity has assured us that the data did not contain anybody’s names, addresses or contact details. It includes only data of people who have explicitly opted in to be part of the Biobank. Those are people who have given their explicit consent that this data can be used, in the knowledge that it will be shared with researchers globally.

Participants have done a great service to the people of this country, and human health globally, through their participation. For example, valuable research is being carried out at McGill University in Canada into chronic pain, which afflicts millions of people here in the UK. We expect UK Biobank to remain one of the leading health research resources.

This has been an unacceptable abuse of the UK Biobank charity’s data, and an abuse of the trust that participants rightly expect when sharing their data for research purposes. The Government take the incident extremely seriously, which is why we have acted rapidly to support the UK Biobank charity in its response and why I wanted to update the House at the earliest opportunity.

The Government will soon be issuing new guidance on control of data from research studies. I take this opportunity once again to urge all businesses and charities to ensure that that their systems and data-sharing processes are as secure as possible. We wrote to businesses last week about the cyber-security tools available to them—for free—from the Government and the steps they should take to maximise security. Ensuring the safe use of UK data is a priority for the Government. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for prior sight of it. This is indeed a serious breach. In another life, I was the chief operating officer of a tech company and we, too, had data breaches. We found that the best way to deal with them was to have developed a culture of openness and honesty in the organisation, not to flap or panic, to plug the leak and to limit the damage. Ideally that is all rehearsed, because it is too late to learn to swim when the ship starts sinking.

A couple of things in the Minister’s statement require clarification. The statement says what the data does not include, with the implication being that the participants could not be individually identified. What was in the data? Could it be used to identify participants, even if only mosaically?

The statement says that the research institutions identified as the source of the leak have had their access blocked. I am left thinking: is that it? Were those institutions Chinese? What sanctions are available either to the UK Biobank or to the Government on those institutions? Is their blocking permanent or temporary? How has UK Biobank reassured itself and its participants that no further copies of the data exist? What is the possibility or likelihood that the full dataset is now in the hands of the Chinese state?

I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not being an instant expert on UK Biobank. Can he tell me whether any research institutions that have access to UK Biobank data are based in Russia, Iran or North Korea? What is the Government’s risk assessment?

When I served on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill Committee, I distinctly remember the Government whipping their Back Benchers to vote down a Conservative amendment to oblige the Secretary of State to maintain a register of hostile actors posing a threat to the cyber-security of critical UK industries and sectors, including health. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that in the light of this serious data breach?

This is a grave incident. UK Biobank is an amazing project with thousands of trusting volunteers. I hope that the Government will send in the relevant agencies to help UK Biobank to secure its systems for the future, including vetting the research institutions that it trusts.

[Ian Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for the way in which he has approached this matter—indeed, with his expertise as a former COO of a tech company. Let me answer his questions directly.

As we understand it—this is from UK Biobank, which is not a Government organisation, but an independent charity—UK Biobank cannot be entirely sure about the data that was included, because it was taken down from the Alibaba websites. However, we do know that there is no personal data in it, in terms of identifiers. I can give an indication of some of the characteristics that are potentially in UK Biobank datasets, which include gender; age; month and year of birth; assessment centre data; attendance date; socioeconomic status; lifestyle habits; measures from biological samples such as haematology and biochemistry—this is the kind of stuff that has been detected—online questionnaires data; sleep; diet; work environment; mental health, and health outcomes data.

The shadow Minister asked whether there are identifiers for individuals. There are not, but it would be wrong for me to give 100% assurance—and UK Biobank cannot do so—that someone could not be identified from the data. However, it would have to be used in a very advanced way in order to do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the three institutions. They have been immediately banned from the platform, and that will be permanent. The Biobank only works with accredited organisations, institutions and individual academic researchers, and the accreditation system is there to make sure that those using it are doing so for valid purposes. It has been running since 2012 and has been used for hundreds of thousands of different analyses. It works incredibly well and will continue to do so.

Let me explain how the system works and where the problem has arisen. In 2024, the system was changed from Biobank issuing datasets to accredited organisations and academic researchers to having all the information on the Biobank platform. When people access the data, they do their analysis and then download it. The system also allows people—although, contractually, accredited organisations are not supposed to do this—to download datasets. We understand from Biobank that what has probably happened is that the three institutions have downloaded the datasets themselves. As yet, we are unclear as to how those datasets ended up on the website, but UK Biobank, along with institutions and organisations attached to the Government, is working through that at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance that Russia, Iran and North Korea are not accredited, and I understand from UK Biobank that they are not. He also mentioned hostile actors. UK Biobank is very strict about who has access, because there is an accreditation process. Secondly, although the three institutions are Chinese in this particular instance, the Chinese Government and Alibaba have been very proactive in helping us, through the British embassy in Beijing, to take down and whack-a-mole anything else that comes up, and they are currently going through that process. Yale University had its accreditation suspended for a breach of data, so this is not a country-specific issue. It just so happens that, in this particular case, the three institutions were Chinese. I think that answers the shadow Minister’s questions.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Health datasets of the size that UK Biobank has are incredibly important, because they allow us to find answers to the huge health challenges that many of us face, whether that is pain, as the Minister referred to, dementia or heart conditions. My concern is that this breach will make people think twice before donating their data. That could have a huge impact on our ability to treat conditions right across the world, but particularly here in the UK. The scientific community has always worked across borders and collaborated, whether that is with Europe, Canada, the US or even China. Given that it is only through these datasets that we can make medical breakthroughs, can the Minister reassure people who are thinking about participating that the protections that he, UK Biobank and other platforms of this kind are putting in place will absolutely protect people in the future?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I will say from the Dispatch Box that we should encourage more participation in UK Biobank. It is a global leader in research and is funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council. It also receives significant funding from Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. That shows the breadth of research that it does on all the key diseases that we suffer from in this country, and it is resolving some of these problems. Chinese researchers are making significant progress on diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Biobank is a global platform, and it is very much welcomed as a research resource. We should encourage the public to make sure that they can volunteer their data, so that the health of all of us is improved as a result.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join the Government in thanking the volunteers who have given researchers access to deeply personal medical records. A very close family member of mine has recently taken the decision to share medical data—although not with UK Biobank—in order to advance such research. It is not an easy decision, but this is such an important cause. Without the many people who have handed over their data, many of the transformational medical breakthroughs of recent years would not have been possible. That is precisely why what has happened is so serious.

This is not the first leak from UK Biobank. In March, The Guardian reported that sensitive medical data donated in good faith had been posted online without the consent of donors, and records have now been put up for sale on a Chinese e-commerce site. This is a profound betrayal of the people who trusted this institution with some of the most intimate details of their lives. UK Biobank has sought reassurances that no names, contact details, NHS numbers or phone numbers were leaked. That is reassuring, but the dismissal of privacy concerns shows a shocking lack of understanding of how easily individuals can be identified, especially in today’s world of artificial intelligence and social media. I urge the Government to hold UK Biobank accountable, and to ensure that protocols are followed and that confidential patient data is not shared online.

Although we are pleased to see a quick and full response from the UK Government in this instance, volunteers need more. Will the Secretary of State require UK Biobank to provide a full, step-by-step breakdown of how it will reform its data privacy once and for all? We need not just guidance or reassurance, but binding commitments that this will not happen again, and that includes some of the technical elements. We cannot just rely on people’s commitment not to download something; the technical barriers should be there. Will the Government ensure that any new guidance strikes the right balance between enabling vital research and guaranteeing watertight protections for patient data? Such data is vital for research, which is so important for the future.

Finally, has UK Biobank even offered an apology to its volunteers? We cannot find one, so we are calling on UK Biobank to issue a full apology without delay. People gave their data to save lives, and they at least deserve accountability.

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the way in which she has dealt with this issue. I echo her thanks to all the volunteers—not only those who give their sensitive data to UK Biobank for critical purposes, but all the volunteers who give data for all research purposes.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson used the word “leak”, but this was not a leak; it was a legitimate download by a legitimately accredited organisation. We have identified a problem with the UK data bank system, in the sense that accredited users have used the system to analyse data sources and then download their results from that analysis, but the system has not prevented them from also downloading the source data. It is that downloaded source data that is against the terms of use for accredited organisations. The three Chinese organisations have been found to have done that, which is why they have been suspended from the site. This was not a leak as such. How that data has got from those institutions on to the Alibaba website is still to be concluded, but this was not a leak of data or a cyber-attack. This was a legitimate download of legitimate data by a legitimately accredited organisation, which is why we should not use the word “leak” for the purposes of reassuring the volunteers who put their data into the system.

Let me answer the hon. Lady’s question about what has been done and what the Government have asked Biobank to do. I reiterate that the whole system has been paused, and the board has taken actions to write to all participants; in fact, there is a statement on Biobank’s website. I cannot recall whether the statement includes an apology, but we will take that back to Biobank—I am sure it is watching this statement. The Information Commissioner’s Office will also be involved, because this issue relates to data. Biobank has referred this incident to the ICO, and we will work very closely with it. I emphasise that we take this matter extremely seriously. We came to the House at the first available opportunity this morning, before the release from Biobank had gone out, to make sure that Members could reassure the volunteers and also see how seriously we take this issue.

The hon. Lady referred to an article in The Guardian. It is because journals demand source data before publication in order to reduce fraud that the source data was included in some journal articles that linked directly to the source data on UK Biobank. Again, it was not a leak; it is about the way in which researchers used data incorrectly.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I am deeply concerned by today’s statement, not least because I am a former research scientist who is all too aware of the professional ramifications of research institutions breaching data control regulations. I know that the vast majority of researchers would never dream of abusing data in this way. Will the Minister provide a reassurance that researchers will not generally be prevented from accessing and using such data appropriately in the future?

[Ian Murray]

UK Biobank has assured us over the past 24 hours that it is looking for a technical fix, which should happen relatively shortly, and we will hold it to that. To show that we are taking the situation as seriously as it should be taken, we have insisted as a Government that UK Biobank should pause all access to, downloads from and use of the system until the fix comes into place. I do not know the exact figures of usage, but across the globe there are somewhere in the region of more than 16,000 researchers using this resource, because it is so valuable. We should thank them for doing that and ensure that they have full access to UK Biobank in the safe way in which it should be used as soon as possible.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

This scandal is essentially a China data theft of UK Biobank’s data, which is generously donated by some half a million British citizens. Let us remember that the UK taxpayer funded approximately £200 million for setting up UK Biobank. They fund about £15 million every single year, which is used by some 22,000 researchers, including 2,000 or 3,000 in China, I understand. Will the Minister confirm that our generosity will not be abused by Chinese researchers and that UK Biobank should exclude them in the future in order to ensure that this data theft comes with sanctions?

[Ian Murray]

I do not think the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question fits the seriousness of this issue. We are yet to get a conclusion from UK Biobank on what the process looked like for the three institutions that have been identified as downloading some datasets to transfer them to the seller, and we will update Members when we are clear on that. UK Biobank has told us quite clearly that that is what has happened.

There are thousands of Chinese researchers working every day on data from UK Biobank and other datasets from across the world, and they have been doing that since 2012 safely and securely. The issue here is that a loophole in the system has allowed datasets to be downloaded alongside the analytical research. If the hon. Gentleman saw some of the advances being made, particularly on Alzheimer’s, he would know that we are working very closely with the research community across the world, from all countries.

As I said to the shadow Minister, the previous suspension of accreditation was for Yale in the United States for misuse of data. Participants know that this research is used globally, and it is right that it is used globally for the advancement of us all. Banning researchers from the site would not be the way in which to advance the outcomes of UK Biobank.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. Fundamentally, this is valuable data, and it relies on trust. I therefore welcome UK Biobank’s actions in suspending the agreement with these researchers. Will the Minister provide a commitment and welcome the technical solution for protecting this data? More and more, we are seeing papers published by AI bots, so there needs to be a way to trace back to the evidence used. There needs to be a workaround on the technical support in order to advance medical research. Will the Minister comment on that?

[Ian Murray]

Significant undertakings were given by the chair and board of UK Biobank this week. They have answered all the questions and worked very closely with the Government, the British embassy in Beijing and the Chinese Government to ensure that this instance is resolved as quickly as possible. They have immediately identified the loopholes that enabled the download of the data from the institution, and they are carrying out mitigation work to ensure that that cannot happen again and to tighten up the system. That should happen within weeks, but in the meantime the UK Government insisted that all access to and downloads from it be paused, and the entire system was paused to allow that work to happen. I pay tribute to UK Biobank for the swiftness with which it has done that. To echo the words of the shadow Minister, it has dealt with the issue transparently, and we welcome that—that is what is required in these kinds of circumstances.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister very much for his statement. As my party’s health spokesperson, I know that research on health is so important initially. UK Biobank is a critical part of that in finding the methods and drugs for cures. The disclosure of data is always a worrying issue, so will the Minister confirm that the breakdown and the data breach do not reach as far as Northern Ireland? For example, Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University are deeply involved in all sections of health research. Has their research been compromised in any way? We always ask for close co-operation with our universities as an integral part of the United Kingdom, and it is essential that opportunity and protection be afforded throughout the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Ian Murray]

I pay tribute to the Belfast universities and the way in which they have advanced research. As has already been mentioned, tens of thousands of individual accredited researchers use UK Biobank regularly, as do thousands of institutions across the globe. We need to ensure that the system is safe, so that volunteers participating in the system can be assured that their data is safe and secured, and that is why it has been paused.

The hon. Gentleman challenges me on whether Belfast universities have been affected by this issue. They will be affected by it in the short term, because there is currently no access to the system, but we hope that that will be resolved. I understand from UK Biobank and from officials that they have been in talks with the pharmaceutical industry and researchers in the field to see whether that would cause a problem, and as long as this situation is temporary, it should not. They will technically be affected in the short term until access is fully recovered.

[Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

From my previous work with the AI and Digital Regulations Service, and as a scientist, I know that UK Biobank is an excellent resource, which furthers scientific research for the benefit of my health and my constituents. In particular, it is working very hard to ensure that its dataset is unbiased and representative of all peoples in our communities in our country. Will the Minister again reassure us that the data is scrupulously anonymised and that deanonymisation is exceptionally difficult and unlikely? Will he confirm that although UK Biobank is a charity and independent of Government, we will continue to support its work once it has addressed the processes that caused this breach?

[Ian Murray]

Yes, I can give that assurance. This Government are giving UK Biobank all the support that it requires to resolve the immediate issue and in the short term to get the system back up and running in as secure a way as possible. Let me echo that participants in UK Biobank have done a great service to the people of this country and around the world. We owe it to them to be transparent and secure, and to ensure that their data is not only safe but advancing UK and worldwide medical research for the benefit of everyone.

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

I will not mention Harlow Town, I promise. [Laughter.]

May I thank the Minister for his statement? I agree with others that UK Biobank is an excellent resource, and I have no doubt that its research has made a huge difference to the health of my constituents. Although this issue is not specifically a cyber-security breach, as he correctly said, will he join me in welcoming the Government’s Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill? Along with the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. Will the Minister add to the work that this Government are doing to ensure that our data across all industries, including the charity sector and Government, is safe under this Government?

[Ian Murray]

In a previous question, my hon. Friend said that Harlow Town were the Man City of non-league football. May I simply suggest that he is the Man City of speaking in this Chamber in terms of the quality and regularity of his contributions? That may be challenged by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—let us look at the data.

I echo what my hon. Friend said in his question, because it is really important for us to impress on the public that data is secure and safe. This Government take that incredibly seriously, not just in the legislation being passed, which he has been a part of, but in the cyber-security tools available for free from this Government to businesses, organisations and institutions right across the country. We wrote to those organisations last week to inform them that those tools were available, and I continue to echo to all businesses, institutions and organisations that they should get involved in ensuring that they are as cyber-secure as possible. We are only as secure as the weakest, and we all have to be as secure as we possibly can be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support visual effects companies.

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

We are committed to ensuring the UK remains the world’s leading destination for film and television production. That ambition sits at the core of the Government’s industrial strategy and the creative industries sector plan, which recognises the sector’s strength as a driver of growth. Every single best visual effects Oscar nominee this year had work done in UK studios, including Bournemouth’s own Outpost VFX for its work on “Sinners”.

[Jessica Toale]

As the Minister says, Outpost VFX is a world-leading VFX company based in my Bournemouth West constituency. It recently convened a meeting of sector leaders, and the message was clear: the UK faces significant competitive disadvantage because of our relatively low net value incentive rates and the 10% total spend rule. As a result, we are missing out on work to overseas facilities, and undermining job creation and skills retention here in the UK. Will the Minister commit to meeting Outpost VFX and other sector representatives to discuss their proposals to boost the UK’s competitiveness?

[Ian Murray]

I am very happy to meet representatives of the VFX industry, including Outpost VFX in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is worth bearing in mind that there are a whole host of visual effects tax reliefs in place, including a 39% rate on VFX costs, to make it as competitive as possible in this country. I meet regularly and engage with the sector, including the UK Screen Alliance. Protecting our world-leading VFX sector base means ensuring that skills keep pace with artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. We understand and acknowledge the significant implications for the sector of various pressures at the moment, but there is £10 million being invested in the National Film and Television School to expand apprenticeships and £25 million of funding for five new CoSTAR—Convergent Screen Technologies and performance in Realtime—labs, and the Chancellor’s £725 million for the next phase of the growth and skills levy will also deliver new digital skills. That package of measures sits alongside the tax reliefs.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to help protect the public from press malpractice.

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

We recognise that incidents of undue attention and harassment from the media cause significant distress to the public. We will always defend media freedom, but with this freedom comes big responsibilities. Publishers must operate ethically and within the bounds of the law. The Secretary of State has met families who have experienced press intrusion. We are now carefully considering the next steps to determine how to ensure that public trust and accountability in news media is maintained and improved.

[Siân Berry]

Last month, a national newspaper intruded on the privacy of one of the families bereaved by the meningitis outbreak, publishing information that the family had asked to be kept private. In opposition, Labour promised independent regulation of the press to curb this awful behaviour, so when exactly will the Secretary of State keep that promise?

[Ian Murray]

The Secretary of State has been clear about this. In March she said, at the Society of Editors future of news conference, that the Government will

“will tread carefully and cautiously about regulation…as any right-minded Government should.”

Fearless journalists must be able to hold the Government to account, but there are also concerns that people are turning away from news and losing trust in issues that, as the hon. Member said, are very serious. I am happy to meet her to discuss such issues. The Government are closely following trends in media consumption. In an age of considerable increasing misinformation and disinformation, including press intrusion, we want to get this right.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to support the BBC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

6. What steps she is taking to support grassroots music venues.

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

The Government are providing up to £30 million through the music growth package. That will further provide support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports. We are fully committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary ticket contribution for stadium and arena shows, to help safeguard the future of the grassroots music sector, and this has already contributed half a million pounds to the live music sector.

[Josh Babarinde]

Eastbourne’s historical bandstand is set to reopen this summer after a refurbishment programme. Mr Speaker, I would like to invite you to come and celebrate with us as our guest of honour at our famous Motown night in July; I know you are a big fan of Motown, so I will give you the invitation later on. We could have even more to celebrate at the bandstand if the Minister were able to review the criteria for the heritage at risk fund, which was announced earlier this year. The fund currently does not seem to cover local authority-run music venues, like Eastbourne bandstand, but we want it to do so, so that we can protect the bandstand for future generations. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will review the criteria?

[Mr Speaker]

I heard it through the grapevine!

[Ian Murray]

Oh, Mr Speaker—you did not steal my line, unfortunately. I congratulate Eastbourne on reopening the bandstand. I am disappointed that I did not receive an invitation—I can throw a few shapes as well and I am very happy to come down and dance the night away with Mr Speaker.

The Government very much care about these venues. The hon. Gentleman will know that on Tuesday we announced that 130 cultural venues, museums, libraries and live music venues will receive a share of nearly £130 million. That includes nearly a £1 million for Music Venue Properties, a charity that helps to conserve venues through community ownership, and Eastbourne bandstand could be part of that. The funding is part of our £1.5 billion investment through the arts everywhere scheme to support 1,000 cultural projects with that kind of infrastructure. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the local authority to discuss what more we can do for Eastbourne bandstand.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On 19 November, the Secretary of State made the welcome announcement that we would end the abuse of ticket resale. Since then, gig goers at grassroots music venues have been ripped off by tens of millions of pounds. With the new Session coming, will that Bill be in the King’s Speech? Can gig goers look forward to the end of being ripped off by touts?

[Ian Murray]

We are determined to end ticket touting in this country. It has been ripping off fans for too long. We have a very strong policy to deal with that and we will bring the legislation forward as soon as we possibly can.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

7. Whether she has had recent discussions with FIFA on support for fans attending the world cup.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to support the video games industry.

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

As part of our creative industries, video games are identified as a priority sector in the industrial strategy. On Monday, we rolled out the games growth package, with a £30 million investment over three years, expanding the UK games fund and investing in the London games festival. We continue to maintain our stable and generous tax reliefs, recognising their role in supporting growth in the games sector, in industry and in wider creative industries. According to estimates from the body Ukie, the value of the UK video game consumer market in 2025 was £8.8 billion.

[Ben Goldsborough]

Norfolk is home to a thriving games development community, with Norfolk games developers supporting over 500 members through mentoring, skills and business growth, contributing to a survival rate of small and medium-sized enterprises that is way above the UK average. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that areas such as Norfolk can access and shape the video games growth package? Will the Minister meet with me to discuss this matter further?

[Ian Murray]

It looks as if I am meeting with my hon. Friend about games, rather than going to the Motown dancing in Eastbourne, but never mind. [Laughter.]

Delivering for all the nations and regions remains a priority for this Government. The UK games fund, which is based in Dundee, is a UK-wide programme available to studios and teams across the country, wherever they are. The funding provided to the London games festival includes showcasing support for regional studios, enabling exposure to a greater audience. I am more than happy to speak to my hon. Friend to discuss the opportunities for Norfolk in more detail.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

As the Minister knows, the video games industry is huge in Scotland. In fact, it is huge worldwide—it is now bigger than the film and television industries put together. The Scottish industry is worth £188 million, but we have reached a point where we have identified a lack of business acumen among growing companies. We need something like business hubs specifically for video games, with centres of video game excellence, so will the Minister perhaps speak to the Scottish Government about how this can be achieved in order to continue the massive growth we have seen?

[Ian Murray]

My friend the hon. Member, my almost-neighbouring MP in Edinburgh, is absolutely right: Scotland is one of the world leaders in video games, and we have to make sure we are harnessing that. The games growth fund that I announced on Monday at the London games festival will make sure that we are nurturing new talent, helping people to get to the prototype stage, and growing the sector to get those projects to commercialisation. That will be spread across the country, of course, but Dundee is the key part of that. Rockstar in Edinburgh will be launching “Grand Theft Auto VI” later this year, which will be the biggest launch of any audiovisual package in the world. We are looking forward to that, but the hon. Member is absolutely right that we have to nurture that talent and bring the pipeline of talent through.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

11. What funding her Department is providing to help improve participation in grassroots sport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. My constituency has always been a hotbed of musical talent and creativity. The newly approved Bathgate Music Hub will be an excellent addition to community-run venues that support local musicians. Co-operative and community-owned models increasingly safeguard and grow live music venues. How does the Department support these models so that towns like Bathgate can fully benefit from community-run clubs and venues?

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

May I start by paying tribute to all at the Bathgate Band who were responsible for the Bathgate Music Hub, particularly Derek Brown? Co-operative live music venues have benefited from the Government’s £150 million community ownership fund, enabling communities to take ownership of valued local cultural assets, but in England, not Scotland. We have the Pride in Place programme, which is supporting 244 neighbourhoods across the UK, and yesterday we announced that the Creative Foundations Fund—a charity that is helping to conserve music venues through community ownership—has awarded £999,000 to music venue properties in England. I have to say that the Scottish Government, through the Barnett formula, have received money in the spending review settlement. It is not clear how much they are spending in this particular area.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

T4. At a time when our rivers and seas are not fit to swim in, the all-party parliamentary group on swimming reports that 1,200 pools have closed since 2010. In my constituency, a consultation by Horsham district council shows strong community support for more investment. Given that two thirds of pools nationally are already past their predicted lifespan, what support can the Secretary of State offer to secure the future of community pools, in addition to her remarks earlier?

2024 Horserace Betting Levy Review

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

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

I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and Department for Culture, Media and Sport Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:

The Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to the nation’s economy and sporting landscape. Britain is the birthplace of modern horse racing, and British racing is world-leading and includes sporting jewels such as the grand national and Royal Ascot. It is the second most attended sport in Great Britain, and saw increased attendances in 2025.

Horseracing is the only sport in receipt of a direct Government-mandated levy, which helps to drive improvements in the sport. The horserace betting levy is paid by bookmakers with annual gross profits on British horseracing of over £500,000, at a rate of 10%. The levy is collected by the horserace betting levy board, and directed towards supporting breeds of horses, the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and education, and the improvement of horse racing. Last year’s levy yield was £108 million, which exceeds the previous year’s figure of £105 million. The Government last introduced changes to the levy in 2017 by regulations made under the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Act 2014, which made a commitment to a further levy review by 24 April 2024. That review was undertaken by the last Government by the 2024 deadline, and this statement sets out the conclusions of that review.

First, in the light of the recent changes to gambling taxation, we want to provide stability and certainty to the gambling sector. For this reason, the Government do not feel it is appropriate to pursue legislative changes to the rate of the horserace betting levy at this time. Secondly, we do not support the extension of the levy to overseas racing. This is because the combination of the existing levy and commercial opportunities already appropriately reflects the specific relationship between the racing and betting industries in Great Britain.

A sustainable future for British horseracing is the shared goal of the betting and racing industries and joint action is required to achieve this.

The Government are steadfast in their support for racing. We welcome initiatives to improve the governance structure within the sport, modernise the fixture list and improve horse welfare. We will continue to support the BHA and wider racing stakeholders to achieve these aims. British racing is the envy of the world and we would encourage the industry to work as one—and with the betting industry—to ensure a sustainable future to ensure the continued success of this national treasure.

[HCWS1450]

Online Advertising Taskforce Progress Report 2025

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Written Statements

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

The online advertising taskforce is today publishing its progress report for 2025, summarising work carried out since publication of its last progress report, covering 2023-24.

The taskforce brings Government and the advertising industry together to help improve trust, transparency and accountability in advertising. It specifically works to reduce harms, tackle illegal advertising and minimise the advertising served to children for products and services illegal to sell to them.

Six industry-led working groups have continued to work across our priority areas to improve the evidence, develop and enhance voluntary initiatives or standards, and identify any gaps in industry initiatives where they already exist. These groups have membership from across the online advertising ecosystem, including regulators and Government, with working groups covering age assurance, the use of AI, influencer marketing, information sharing to counter malvertising, the Internet Advertising Bureau UK’s gold standard, and principles for intermediaries and platforms in their hosting of online adverts.

I chaired meetings of the taskforce on 10 November 2025 and 26 February 2026, and commend the group for the progress it has led across the online advertising ecosystem.

Specifically, I want to highlight progress to understand the impact of AI in advertising, and welcome the publication of the Advertising Association’s best practice guide for the responsible use of generative AI in advertising: https://adassoc.org.uk/our-work/best-practice-guide-for-the-responsible-use-of-generative-ai-in-advertising

This was developed under the auspices of the taskforce’s AI working group and is now being adopted across the sector. Similarly, the influencer marketing working group has driven adoption of the influencer marketing code of conduct: https://www.isba.org.uk/knowledge/isba-imtb-influencer-marketing-code-conduct-version-4

The taskforce estimates to now cover over 50% of the relevant market. I also welcome indicative findings from the taskforce’s age assurance working group that online and platform targeting tools are largely effective in ensuring children are not served adverts for age-restricted products. Finally, the information sharing working group has made significant progress in removing barriers to cross-platform information sharing on malvertising, with a live pilot already allowing real-time information sharing between trusted partners. Further details of the focus and achievements of working groups are set out in the progress report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-advertising-taskforce-progress-report-2025

While I warmly welcome this progress, there remains significant work to do. The continued work of the taskforce and its working groups is vital for understanding and addressing issues in the online advertising sector, and the progress report published today presents a forward plan for 2026.

As part of that, I am keen to ensure that the taskforce increases focus on transparency in the online advertising ecosystem, with particular work to tackle fraudulent advertising. In response to this renewed focus, the taskforce has agreed to stand up a new ad fraud and standards working group to focus specifically on issues of fraud, scams and malvertising in online advertising. This group will be co-chaired by Government and the Internet Advertising Bureau UK, and will report back to Ministers in 2027.

The progress report is published on gov.uk today, and I will place a copy of the report in the Library of each House.

[HCWS1407]

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026.

It is great, as always, to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be speaking to this order, which was laid before the House in draft on 28 January 2026 and requires that the Government continue to provide funding for the Churches Conservation Trust, or CCT.

The CCT, which was established by legislation in 1969 as the Redundant Churches Fund, is a charity aimed at protecting an essential part of our national heritage. It demonstrates a successful partnership between Church, Government and communities. The CCT plays a crucial role in caring for some of the most architecturally impressive churches no longer required for regular worship. It currently cares for more than 350 churches in towns, villages and cities across England, all of which are listed, mostly at grades I and II, and some of which are scheduled ancient monuments. The CCT’s collection showcases how historical buildings can be brought back to life creatively to continue to serve the communities that they were built for, once they are no longer required for their original use.

Historical places of worship are a valued part of this nation’s heritage. Around 45% of all grade I listed buildings are Church of England churches or cathedrals, and they represent some of the finest examples of our historical buildings, heritage and exceptional craftsmanship. Those buildings are also often at the heart of communities, admired by visitors and beloved by residents. The CCT’s work is crucial to ensuring that they can be kept open and enjoyed as cultural, social, tourism and educational assets. Working in partnership with local communities is key to achieving that, as collaboration helps to secure the futures of historical places of worship as living, useful buildings that continue to contribute to the social fabric of their local places.

That approach was recently demonstrated at St Torney’s in North Hill, Cornwall, the newest addition to the CCT’s portfolio. The CCT took one of the last remaining community buildings in an isolated village on the edge of Bodmin moor and turned it into a hive of community activity, hosting art shows, music, talks, children’s activities and much more. Close consultation with local residents was paramount to the success of the project, which continues to be successful. Other recent notable successes include the CCT’s work to conserve the internationally important stained glass in St Mary’s in Shrewsbury, again in close consultation with the local community, which is critical.

The CCT recognises the importance of passing down traditional heritage skills to the next generation and building expertise in skills. Through its successful heritage skills summer programme, run jointly with Historic England, the CCT provides high-level repairs to the grade II listed St John’s church in Lancaster while helping to train a cohort of young people in the craft skills needed to take care of historical churches.

Closer to home, last year saw the CCT move into its new headquarters at the Old Black Lion in Northampton. Following an innovative regeneration project, that unique space combines the fantastic revitalised historical pub with St Peter’s church, in what is the crown jewel of the CCT’s estate and its new national office. Through the Old Black Lion project, the CCT is contributing to Northampton’s wider regeneration, investing more than £2 million in the town’s most deprived wards.

The CCT is supported by funding from both the Church of England and the Government—the Government are providing more than £3 million in the current financial year. It has also sought to diversify its income streams to multiply its core funding, so it can further support its activity at a time of public funding pressures. This debate takes place at a pivotal time for the funding of places of worship: to make a lasting difference to historical places of worship, this Government are shifting towards capital funding and will invest more than £90 million over the next four years, with the launch of the places of worship renewal fund.

That new fund, which was announced in January, will allow for longer term planning, enabling us to target resources at the areas that are most in need, particularly areas with double disadvantage. In 2025, the CCT launched its new strategy, which is designed to guide the charity’s work for the next five years. Under the strategy, the CCT will focus on three interdependent principles: conservation, community and creativity. It will work with local communities both to conserve the historical fabric of churches, and to find creative new ways to reimagine such places.

This order allows the Government to continue to provide funding to support the CCT and enable it to continue its work in giving future life to the historical places of worship in its care. The instrument covers three years, providing the CCT with certainty about Government funding support for this period and helping it plan its activities with confidence. The funding will allow the CCT to continue to conserve the fabric of one of the largest collections of highly listed buildings in the country, keeping them open, for free, to everyone of all faiths and none.

I hope that Committee members share my enthusiasm for the important work done by the CCT, and recognise the key role that it plays in preserving and promoting a vital aspect of our nation’s heritage. I hope that they will approve the draft order, which will provide for the CCT from 2026 to 2029, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the shadow Minister for their contributions. First, I will deal with some of the questions about the listed places of worship scheme.

The replacement scheme will be a £92 million fund over the next four years, which is actually an increase in funding over what was available on the VAT reclaim scheme, because it is England only and not a UK-wide scheme, therefore only eligible in England. There are no Barnett consequentials to that for Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, because the scheme is the Department spending budget that has already been Barnettised through the spending review. In the case of Scotland, while I know there has been a lot of discussion from Scottish Members about this, it is up to the Scottish Government to determine how they spend the spending review Barnett consequential. There is no Barnett on this allocation of budget.

The CCT should be able to apply for the places of worship renewal fund, as it can already for the listed places of worship fund, as the shadow Minister laid out. In terms of when, I can confirm it will be soon—as hon. Members know, “soon” in Government terms is anything between 1 January and 31 December, but it actually will be soon, because we acknowledge that people are a little bit in limbo here.

The reason the scheme was closed—to answer one of the questions put to me—was because 80% of the projects that were brought forward said that the work would go ahead regardless, and another 15% on top of that said that the work would have gone ahead on time and on budget, so the public purse was funding stuff that was already happening. The fact that we have gone to the new grant system means that people will be able to apply for more funding in that sense. In the past there was a £25,000 cap, and the average spend was between £3,000 and £5,000—quite small amounts of money in terms of VAT reclaim.

We encourage the heritage sector—the CCT and otherwise—to come forward with projects as soon as the criteria are announced. The fund sits under the umbrella of the £1.5 billion that DCMS announced last month for arts, heritage, museums and places of worship, so there is a lot of money going into the sector, and the sector has welcomed that. I think that answers all the questions, unless anyone would like to come back to me on that.

There is eligibility for places of worship and former places of worship—CCT places—to apply for heritage at risk funding if they fall into that category. Recently, half a million was announced for repair work to St Catherine of Siena Church and more than £250,000 for emergency repairs at St Michael’s in Birmingham, because they are both sites classed as heritage at risk. There are other avenues of funding, so I encourage the custodians of churches to come forward if they need any advice on finding the best model for them.

Government funding for CCT, along with funding from the Church of England, is crucial to the heritage sector, enabling these remarkable buildings of cultural significance to remain open and in good repair, serving the communities for which they were originally built. I want to pass on my thanks to the trustees and staff at the CCT, and all the individual volunteers who keep these buildings going in a time of need. There is a positive outlook for historical places of worship under the Government’s new funding and with the CCT’s new strategy.

Question put and agreed to.

Science, Innovation and Technology

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

[Lincoln Jopp]

Does the Minister think that that will expand or detract from the commissioner’s personal responsibilities and accountabilities?

[Ian Murray]

I do not think that it will expand or detract from them. The role of head of the Information Commission is exactly the same as the role of Information Commissioner. Obviously, before the role was held by an individual with the Information Commission below them. The regulations are formalising that under the 2025 Act. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on the terms and conditions of the Information Commissioner.

[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 4 March 2026; c. 6.]

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

[Ian Murray]

I do not think that it will expand or detract from them. The role of the Information Commissioner will be split among the members of the Information Commission.

English Rugby

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I apologise that the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is at the winter Paralympics in Milan, and there is nobody more appropriate than a Scot to take this particular debate. Ms Vaz, if you will indulge me, the reason I am wearing this tie is purely because I left my other blue one in the car this morning and this is the only one hanging up in my office that I had to put on—of course, I have to be appropriately dressed for replying to debates.

I am pleased to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing it. I need to declare an interest early on, as holders of the Calcutta cup and favourites for the Six Nations; I wish England the best of luck against France this weekend, as it will allow us to lift that trophy. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that rugby union, and indeed all sports, play a vital role in our national and local identity. The things he said about the people who wash the kits, cook the food and coach the children, and all the people involved in our clubs as volunteers, describe many sports across the country. They are the beating heart of our communities.

From the roar of Twickenham—or sometimes the silence of Twickenham—to the muddy pitches of our local leagues, rugby is a sport that instils the core values of teamwork, discipline and respect. Those values are on show from the grassroots rugby games across the country all the way to the Six Nations. I would like to celebrate the performances by Scotland and Wales this weekend and I hope that England finish strongly, as they probably should.

Beyond the game itself, rugby clubs serve as the beating heart of our communities, demonstrating how much rugby is so much more than just a sport. They are vital social hubs, as the hon. Gentleman said, providing a sense of belonging, fostering local pride and delivering accessible opportunities for people of all ages to get active. That is exactly why the Government have been unwavering in their support for the game, from the grassroots up to the elite level.

On support for grassroots rugby union, as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and many others in their interventions, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone has access to and can benefit from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. That includes rugby union and indeed rugby league—Mr Speaker would be upset if I did not mention rugby league too. Sport England is providing more than £60 million of funding to the Rugby Football Union between 2022 and 2029, supporting men’s and women’s grassroots rugby participation.

As well as that, we are providing significant financial support to deliver grassroots sport facilities, including for rugby. The Government recently announced £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the UK in this year alone, including more than £68 million that will be invested in England via the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme. I hope that will resolve many of the issues about facilities that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) talked about. That builds on more than £80 million being invested in England in 2025-26. Some 40% of funded projects through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme will have a multi-sport offer to allow more people to participate in a wider variety of sports such as rugby.

In particular, women’s rugby, which has been mentioned, has seen exceptional growth in recent years. Women’s sport has seen exceptional growth, in fact, but particularly rugby. Since 2021, participation in the women’s game has surged by 38%. It is great to see the growth of women’s rugby and it was fantastic to see the success of the Red Roses last summer to inspire the next generation. A record 82,000 crowd, as well as a record television audience—a larger television audience than for the Six Nations—watched that final. That is part of the Government’s work to drive a decade of change in women’s sport, and my Department is using the women’s sport taskforce to drive progress across the sector and is working with the authorities to do so.

[Sarah Dyke]

Holly Davidson made history in February when she took charge of the Ireland versus Italy Six Nations game in Dublin, becoming the first woman to referee a men’s game. Being a proud Scot, will he join me in congratulating her on that terrific move for women’s participation in rugby generally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

It is a terrific success and I congratulate Holly on that. If there were more female referees in the men’s game across all sports, there would probably be a much better-behaved environment for people to participate in. That does offer inspiration; I have a five-year old girl and a one-year old girl and when they see the finals, when they see the Lionesses or the Red Roses lifting those trophies and when they see female referees participating in the game, it inspires them to do so such more. We should celebrate all those successes, but they are still the exception, rather than the rule—we need to make sure they are the rule, rather than that exception.

The Government are building on the huge success of the women’s Rugby World Cup to deliver a successful legacy programme with the RFU. We ensured there is a lasting legacy from the tournament by providing nearly £7 million to the World Cup legacy programme, called Impact ’25.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello)) for securing this debate. In Keighley we have an urgent challenge: the last Conservative Government allocated more than £2 million to Keighley Cougars to build a new stand, but the money is still being withheld by Bradford council. It needs to be unlocked so we can get that stand built urgently. Would the Minister, or his counterpart in MHCLG, meet me so we can discuss that and try to get that money unlocked for Keighley Cougars?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to commit my colleagues to a meeting with the appropriate Minister. Let us do that, and let us at least write to the hon. Gentleman and get that issue resolved.

The legacy programme has benefited 850 clubs, supporting women and girls of all ages to get involved in rugby. That includes clubs based in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Dorset, such as Dorchester RFC, which has received £5,000 towards upgrading its facilities.

I will use a couple of minutes, in the time we have left, to run through some of the issues raised. Let us look at the financial stability of the game, which has been a significant concern since covid in particular. My hon. Friend the Sports Minister has previously met with the RFU and Prem Rugby to discuss the long-term financial sustainability of professional rugby union, and my officials regularly engage with both organisations on that issue.

The hon. Member for West Dorset is right to talk about the £158 million to rugby union to support the clubs during covid-19. The loan agent for that is Sport England, which is always analysing the repayments and the borrowers’ financial situations. We cannot comment on individual clubs, but he did mention the favourable terms, including long interest rates, long repayment periods and up-front payment holidays. If any club is struggling, it should get in touch with Sport England as the loan agent to have discussions on covid loans.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned schools, and there is good news for schools. The Government are committed to protecting time for PE in schools, as set out in the Government’s response to the independent expert-led review of the curriculum. The new PE and school sport partnerships, announced by the Prime Minister last June, will ensure that all children have equal access to high-quality PE. These new partnerships will bring together schools, local clubs and national Government bodies to target funding and support where it is most needed—particularly, as hon. Members have mentioned, in state schools in our most deprived areas.

[Munira Wilson]

On PE in schools, will the Minister or his counterparts in the Department for Education commit to publishing a national schools sport strategy and a multi-year funding settlement, with the sport premium having been scrapped and other funds such as the opening school facilities fund that have benefited schools, particularly those in disadvantaged areas,?

[Ian Murray]

I have committed some of my colleagues to meetings already, but let me ask the appropriate Minister from DFE to write to the hon. Lady to answer those questions. I am coming on to her questions about planning and MHCLG in terms of Sport England. MHCLG is considering all responses to its recent consultation and are continuing to discuss the matter with Sport England. No decision will be made until all those responses are analysed as part of the consultation, and MHCLG are taking that forward.

Finally, I want to run through the RFU governance structures quickly—and let us acknowledge that substantial change is taking place within that governance. I think the RFU has heard the message and the PREM has moved towards a criteria-based expansion and demotion model. The Government are consistently working with the RFU and representatives of the Prem and Champ clubs, including Premiership Women’s Rugby, while also monitoring the situation, and are supporting them with the long-term sustainability of elite rugby union.

Rugby union is a great national success story—for some more than others—but it is currently writing its next critical chapter with the women’s game, the grassroots game and the elite game, and the Government are here to support that. We have stood shoulder to shoulder with the sport through its most difficult moments, such as covid, and will continue to champion its growth, particularly in the women’s game. We look forward to seeing English rugby continue to thrive for generations to come—[Interruption.] I have my fingers crossed as I stand at this particular Dispatch Box—apart, of course, from when they play Scotland.

Question put and agreed to.