Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”

This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.

New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—

“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—

(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;

(c) engage in surge pricing.

(2) In this section—

“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and

“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”

This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.

New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—

“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—

(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or

(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).

(3) In this section—

“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and

“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”

This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.

New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—

“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—

(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;

(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;

(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;

(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.

(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—

(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;

(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;

(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;

(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and

(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”

This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.

New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—

“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.

(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.

(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.

(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—

(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and

(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”

This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.

New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—

“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—

(a) by a charity, or

(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.

(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”

New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—

“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”

Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”

Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.

This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.

Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—

“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”

Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the sports rights provisions.”

Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”

Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—

“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”

This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.

Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—

(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.

Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”

Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”

Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —

“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and

(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—

(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or

(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”

This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.

Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—

“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”

Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—

“the appropriate national legislature” means—

(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;

(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;

(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”

New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—

“Part 1

Offences

Industrial action transport offences

1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.

(2) It is an offence for any person to—

(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,

(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or

(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.

(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.

(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) airport operation services;

(b) bus services;

(c) light rail services;

(d) passenger railway services.

(5) In this paragraph—

“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;

“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;

“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—

(a) Blackpool Tramway;

(b) Docklands Light Railway;

(c) Edinburgh Trams;

(d) Glasgow Subway;

(e) London Trams;

(f) London Underground;

(g) Manchester Metrolink;

(h) Nottingham Express Transit;

(i) Sheffield Supertram;

(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;

(k) West Midlands Metro;

“passenger railway services” means—

(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—

(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),

(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,

(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or

(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or

(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.

(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—

(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;

(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.

(7) In this paragraph—

“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);

“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;

“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.

Industrial action local authority offences

2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.

(2) It is an offence for any person to—

(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or

(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.

(3) In this paragraph—

“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;

“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;

“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;

Part 2

Enforcement

Penalties on conviction

3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

Power to impose financial penalties

4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.

(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.

(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.

(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—

(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,

(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or

(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.

(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.

Notice of intention to impose financial penalty

5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.

(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.

(3) The notice of intention must set out—

(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,

(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and

(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.

Right to make representations

6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.

(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.

Final notice

7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—

(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and

(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.

(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.

(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.

(4) The final notice must set out—

(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),

(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,

(c) information about how to pay the penalty,

(d) the period for payment of the penalty

(e) information about rights of appeal, and

(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.

Withdrawal or amendment of notice

8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—

(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or

(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.

(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.

Appeals

9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—

(a) the decision to impose the penalty;

(b) the amount of the penalty.

(2) The appeal may be made—

(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;

(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;

(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.

(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.

(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.

(5) An appeal under this paragraph—

(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but

(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.

(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.

(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.

Recovery of financial penalty

10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.

(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.

(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.

(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—

(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and

(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.

Proceeds of financial penalties

11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.

No protection if union induces industrial action

12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.

Part 3

Interpretation

13 In this Schedule—

“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;

“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];

“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;

“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”

This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.

New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—

“Protections for participants in major sporting events

1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—

(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;

(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—

(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;

(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;

(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.

Protections for spectators of major sporting events

2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—

(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—

(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;

(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.

(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).

Accessible facilities

3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.

(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.

Financial Assistance

4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).

Interpretation

5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”

This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.

Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—

“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”

This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.

Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—

“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.

(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”

Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—

“Schedule 4A

SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS

1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.

(2) A sporting event betting licence must—

(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and

(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.

(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.

(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.

2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;

(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.

(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—

(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;

(b) damages.”

[Anna Sabine]

As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.

On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.

There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.

All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:

“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”

That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.

[Anna Sabine]

It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.

Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Chris Vince.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are seeing a first in this House—a debate in which the Member for Harlow is called first. I welcome it. You are in a good mood, Mr Speaker, because it is Lancashire Day today.

[Mr Speaker]

No, it is not.

[Chris Vince]

Well, as a sort of adopted Yorkshireman, I look forward to celebrating it with you.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a keen football supporter, and although the fortunes of both Harlow Town and Leeds United have been somewhat inconsistent in recent years—I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is sitting opposite me, is looking forward to a positive Farke-led revolution—I feel an immense sense of pride when the country hosts sporting events. I think not only of the 2012 Olympics; I am old enough to remember Euro ’96, when football came home, but perhaps not in all the ways we hoped it would.

I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for her commitment and dedication to sport in this country. Whether it is grassroots football teams such as the league-winning Roydon FC or our Ballon d’Or winning England captain Harry Kane—

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

Or Wigan Warriors!

[Mr Speaker]

Order!

[Chris Vince]

I know that sport, and indeed the fantastic rugby league players who I know, Mr Speaker, you regularly cheer on—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

They do not have it in Chorley either!

[Mr Speaker]

Order!

[Chris Vince]

Maybe between us, we can change that. [Interruption.] I feel like I have started an argument between Mr Speaker and the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State is not going to win, so I will move on quickly.

Sport has the opportunity not only to improve people’s lives, but to change people’s lives. I have formed friendships by standing at Harlow Town football club week in, week out, and I am forever grateful for having had that opportunity. This Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading host of major sporting events by establishing a legal framework that makes it easier to host international competitions, and strengthen our advantage when bidding for future tournaments.

I welcome some of the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats in their amendments, but I believe that the Bill in its current form already addresses unauthorised ticket touting. We need to see the back of that menace. We want real sports fans to have the opportunity to go to these sporting events.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend talks about the investment from the Government and the football foundation into Central Park. She is right; we know that the thing that is most likely to get young people active in sport is watching live sport. That is why we are so committed to investing in our community facilities.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I know that the Minister cares deeply about increasing sporting participation, so she must be as disappointed as I am that the Government’s rhetoric just does not match the facts. School sport funding has been cut; business rates rises mean that clubs and facilities are raising their participation fees, some by as much as 85%, making them less accessible for the poorest; local authorities are shutting their facilities; and the UK ranks near the bottom of EU expenditure on sport and physical activity. The Government say that this is important, but how can we believe them when existing facilities are shutting faster than they can invest in new ones?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

As my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, we make no apologies for changing the system. Not enough young people are getting active. As a former secondary school teacher, I know how important that is. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend and, of course, I speak regularly to the Schools Minister about this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Making sport more accessible should be the ultimate goal of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and that is why we continue to urge the Government to stop raising taxes on sports clubs and to ensure that all sports, and especially female sports, champion fairness and safety. The Conservative party is clear: all UK sports and their governing bodies must follow the law when it comes to biological sex and ensure that there is a level playing field for female athletes to compete. Will the Government match the Conservative party’s commitment to women’s sport and remove public funding from sports bodies that refuse to follow the law?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Wareham is fortunate to be served by the fantastic Rex cinema, which is Dorset’s oldest cinema and one of the oldest in the country, and it is volunteer led. It shows two films every day and has been refurbished to maintain its art deco interior. However, its roof is now over 135 years old and will cost £400,000 to repair. The volunteers have funded a new projector, but they just cannot raise that sort of money. Will the Minister consider extending cultural capital grants to community cinemas?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am struggling because we only get a short time for these questions. I think we should have an hour, and I hope somebody will reflect on that.

[Ian Murray]

In the interests of time, I will just say that I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that issue in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Celebrating culture as a community can be an incredibly unifying experience, and many people will have enjoyed Notting Hill carnival this weekend, but 636 people were arrested for crimes including sexual offences and possession of weapons. Last year, it cost about £16 million just to police the carnival, and this year a further £4.6 million of taxpayers’ money was provided for additional safety measures. Given those figures, are the Minister and the Secretary of State satisfied that this particular cultural event represents good value for taxpayers? What discussions is the Secretary of State having with colleagues about whether the present approach is sustainable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the UK’s need for sovereign capability in AI. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), whose work I have inherited in this area. I also thank my hon. Friend for the contribution of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee over a long period of time. We are taking the need to deal with the exposure of the UK very seriously, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Frontier AI is supercharging misinformation online, but we still cannot get to grips with harms much closer to home. There are campaigners in the Public Gallery today, including Tulisa Contostavlos, who was the target of a fabricated story following an undercover tabloid sting, and is proof of the damage that an unregulated press can do. Such examples are why the Lib Dems want the full implementation of Leveson 1 and the commissioning of Leveson 2. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Tulisa to discuss finally getting proper regulation of the press?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to support lidos.

[Mr Speaker]

It helps if you get up to say the question number, Dr Opher.

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

I will get up, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing work on this—[Laughter.] Let me start again!

I thank my hon. Friend for his intense work on this issue. The Minister for sport will be delighted to meet him. However, my hon. Friend will know that lidos are a personal passion for me, and reversing the neglect of these much-loved community assets is something that this Government intend to make a priority. We will be in a position to say more about that shortly, but in the meantime I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for their campaign to ensure that lidos have their proper place in British public life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a strong champion on this issue. It was a delight to visit her constituency earlier this year to talk and to see at first hand the problem that it creates. As the Secretary of State has outlined, this Government are committed to that register, and we know the difference it will make to communities such as my hon. Friend’s and those up and down the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has just reminded me that he and I are so old that we started out loading cassette tapes when we played video games as kids. I am aware that people feel very strongly about this issue. My hon. Friend will know that decisions around media formats are ultimately for companies, but we as a Government believe that companies should always be clear with customers about what they are paying for. That is why we have commissioned the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to develop guidance that will clarify people’s ownership rights when they purchase digital games, music and films.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her warm words. I am looking forward to working constructively with her and her team.

May I begin by paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in a horrific head-on collision on the A66 last month? The car that collided with them was travelling in the wrong direction. My thoughts are with their families and friends at this terrible, terrible time. Their deaths have renewed concern about videos on TikTok and other platforms that glorify dangerous driving and police chases. The behaviour these videos encourage can have fatal consequences. We know the Government recently raised this issue with social media companies, yet the content remains up. What more will the Minister and the Secretary of State do to ensure that TikTok and other platforms crack down on that before more lives are lost?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)]

The Charity Commission takes very seriously concerns about the alleged misuse of charities in the UK to promote the interests of foreign states. The Government’s social cohesion action plan, published in March, set out our plans to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremists’ abuse of charities. We are working with the Charity Commission to develop the necessary legislation, and we take this issue very, very seriously.

[Mr Speaker]

That completes DCMS questions. Some news for the House: when we return after the conference recess, the session will be for an hour.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

May I encourage the Church Commissioners to support the Church in facilitating community events? Wells cathedral and Wells bishop’s palace are at the centre of an amazing programme of year-round festivals, fairs and markets, but the Church Commissioners have suddenly served a stop notice on the Phelps’ family at Palace farm in Wells, which for decades has offered—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but the original question was about Palestine. What the hon. Member is saying is not relevant to that question. Let us move on.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)]

4. What assessment the Church of England has made of the level of persecution of Christians overseas.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members that they are meant to stand up when asking a question? We are back to school; this is the first day of term. Let’s get some memory power!

[Marsha De Cordova]

The Church remains deeply concerned about the ongoing worldwide persecution on the grounds of faith and belief, including recent cases in Sudan, Afghanistan, Palestine, India and many others, and all these countries have featured high on the most recent Open Doors world watch list. Alongside the UN Secretary-General, the Church believes that whenever one minority group is persecuted, no one is safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot respond to him in Cornish.

[Mr Speaker]

Try!

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I will not try, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Electoral Commission is in discussion with his local authority at the moment, and I know it would welcome any further representations —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Perkins, you just walked right in front of the Member who is asking the question.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Apologies, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There is something going wrong with the House. Can we please get back to remembering our courtesies to other Members when they are asking questions?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I know the Electoral Commission will welcome any further representations that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) wants to make. As I say, the commission keeps the languages it chooses to translate materials into under review.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Church has a long history of working across faiths to ensure community cohesion. Most dioceses have an interfaith adviser who advises—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I am being instructed on who sits where. Mr Perkins, when you came through the door, you walked directly into my line of sight to Perran Moon. It blocks my vision when you walk in front of another Member. I do not like being challenged on something when I am absolutely correct.

[Marsha De Cordova]

I will start from the top. The Church has a long history of working across faiths to ensure community cohesion. Most dioceses have an interfaith adviser who advises clergy and congregations about their interfaith engagement, promoting community cohesion. That work is supported through the national presence and engagement programme.

Media Green Paper

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend asks a number of questions and I will try to address them. First, in the Green Paper we have deliberately broadened out access to good quality trusted news and content to potentially include print media as well. It is not lost on me that during the Southport riots people were seeking out the Liverpool Echo and other local news outlets to try to find real information, as opposed to the misinformation and disinformation they were seeing online. She will know that alongside that, one of the things the Government have done is publish the first ever local media strategy to try to support that industry to be able to continue to provide high-quality news.

My hon. Friend mentions algorithms. One reason we are particularly keen to ensure the prominence of quality, trusted and high-quality content online and on platforms such as YouTube is that at the moment the algorithms decide what children, in particular, see. I commend YouTube for its work on YouTube Kids, but we need to see more of that. At the moment, we are putting up with a situation where the older generation tends to watch traditional television on television sets and can easily find good-quality content and trusted news, but the younger generation tend to be on devices online and cannot do so. That is not acceptable.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The Green Paper rightly recognises the severe financial challenges facing our public service broadcasters, which have been vividly exposed by recent devastating cuts at the BBC. The Liberal Democrats have long proposed that the BBC World Service should be fully funded directly from Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office budgets, protecting its vital global footprint while freeing up £221 million a year to be reinvested at home. Will the Secretary of State take on board our proposals? What urgent conversations has she had with her Foreign Office colleagues to make that a reality?

Turning to online spaces, the proposal to highlight trusted news sources on social media is welcome, but unfortunately this is just a sticking plaster over the fundamental issue that big social media platforms are already rigged against truth, fairness and impartiality. The real threat to our democracy are the harmful platforms themselves, which use algorithms deliberately engineered to amplify foreign disinformation while systematically choking out trusted journalistic sources. Should the Secretary of State not be focusing the full weight of her Department, and that of her colleagues in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, on cleaning up social media platforms once and for all, rather than fighting a losing battle against bad actors on systems that are built to work against us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. We have lost many parts of our civic realm: thriving town centres where people come together, the social clubs that used to exist all over our country, and the youth clubs that we are busy rebuilding. I thank her for all her help and support. I believe that the media, and in particular public service media, are an essential part of that civic realm. Whether it is VE Day, Remembrance Sunday or the world cup which we are all currently enjoying, public service broadcasters provide the shared moments where we come together as a nation and celebrate what it means to be us. We are determined to grip these issues and not allow us to drift into a transition, so that our public service media are adequately funded and are able to continue to do that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the media landscape is changing so quickly that no sooner was the ink dry on the Media Act 2024 than it was almost obsolete. We know that for the first time YouTube has overtaken the BBC in audience reach, which is why the Green Paper is really welcome, but I wonder whether it is a first step towards a new and more extensive media Bill that reflects the nation’s viewing habits and reaches a definitive definition of television. The Green Paper talks about new television when talking about video-sharing platforms, YouTube and so on. We need a new definition of television to reflect technological change. Finally, the consultation refers to media literacy, but surely if we are really planning to future-proof that, we should be talking about AI literacy too—and not just for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the birthday boy himself, Chris Vince.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker—21 again. I thank the Secretary of State for her response to this urgent question, and particularly for her emphasis on the importance online literacy, which, as a former teacher—Chris Vince bingo in full force today—I know to be really important. I pay tribute to Michael Casey, editor of Your Harlow, an online newspaper that prints tens of thousands of articles every year, and that filled the hole left by Harlow Star when it closed down.

I would like to build on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), who said that more and more people are using AI summaries to get their news, and are not relying on trusted sources. Is there not a danger that if we, and the AI companies, do not provide support to trusted sources, they will not be able to continue?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Wells Cathedral school is in my constituency, and it has 80 young people who are on the music and dance scheme. It is a fantastic scheme, and I pay tribute to the outgoing headteacher, Alastair Tighe, who has done his very best to ensure that the scheme reaches deep into the community and those from less advantaged backgrounds, including one of our local cleaners—she is able to pay just £200 a year for what is a £50,000 a year education. However, there has been a 10-year drift between inflation and the amount of the money that the scheme receives. Can the Secretary of State have another look at this issue and make it absolutely certain that pupils benefit from better funding—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have only 30 minutes.

[Lisa Nandy]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Alastair Tighe and all the people who make this commitment real. They change children’s lives, and this Government cannot do that alone from Whitehall. What we can do, however, is fund such schemes adequately. Even in these difficult financial circumstances, we made a £36.5 million commitment to the music and dance scheme last year, and we have increased that by £1.3 million to ensure that it can continue.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for North West Leicestershire and for all the young people in her constituency. As I said to the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), we have been investing in music and dance in particular, but we have also invested £425 million in the creative foundations fund to support arts venues across the country, because one of the key things that we have identified is that it is not just about the bursaries that we provide to enable access for all; it is about those institutions existing in every part of the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that the music and dance scheme supports so many talented young performers from lower-income backgrounds to access an arts education. She will also know that such specialist schools and conservatoires are now subject to VAT, because of changes brought in by her Government. In many cases, the bursaries do not even begin to cover the extreme costs, which are made up by family members, parents and everybody clubbing together to try to find the money. The VAT is still there, and it still makes a difference to whether they can afford it. What assessment has the Department made of the number of families paying VAT on the remaining fees, and how many talented young artists are now unable to attend as a result? I think I heard her right in saying that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, but could she please confirm that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

It is important that any new site put forward for UNESCO world heritage site status first goes through a robust national assessment process—and the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises will be considered as part of that—before being put on the UK’s tentative list of prospective world heritage nominations. However, I am very happy to arrange a meeting with him to discuss what may have to be done to make that application as strong as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Blackman—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

The Government are acutely aware of the challenges of a very casualised industry in which freelancers often do not have the voice they need to stand up for their rights, protect them at work and make sure the industry they work in is fair and safe, so I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue in this House and for being their voice. I would be delighted to organise a meeting with the relevant officials so that she can discuss this issue. I can also update the House that we have recently appointed the freelance champion role. They will advocate for the creative sector’s freelancers within Government. We will be in a position to announce those names shortly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dame Jessica Morden. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Grassroots venues in Newport such as The Cab and Le Pub, where the fan-led review was launched recently, are a vital part of our city’s creative industry, drawing thousands of people into our city centre each month. The ticket levy announced by the Government could help such venues to manage rising costs and develop talent. Larger events were encouraged to participate voluntarily in the scheme, so could we have a bit of a progress report and an idea of next steps?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I concur with my hon. Friend’s view that, now more than ever, the BBC’s role in providing trusted news and information is essential. For all the challenges that the BBC has faced, it remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news across the world. I recognise that the BBC has had some serious challenges to deal with, and has had to make some difficult decisions, but this Government are determined to support its efforts by ensuring that it is adequately funded. We have recently published the first ever local news strategy. Colleagues will know that in the current by-election in Makerfield—next door to me in Wigan—there has been a huge upsurge in the amount of misinformation and disinformation targeted at residents. The BBC has a role to play in countering that, but so too do tremendous outlets such as the Wigan Post, which provide much needed balance.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Last year the BBC lost another 300,000 licence fee payers. The BBC’s current scale and financial model is clearly unsustainable. Yesterday the BBC announced controversial cuts, including “The World Tonight” and “Money Box Live”, without anyone in Parliament expressing a view. That is not right. The Government appear to be restricting parliamentary debate about the future of the BBC. They announced the BBC charter via written statement, not a debate. They have already ruled out some alternative funding models and consideration of the size, scope and scale of the BBC’s operations, leaving the BBC to take action unilaterally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the scope of the charter review, and ensure that Parliament has a proper say on the future of the BBC?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

It is important to lay out that it is a manifesto commitment—from the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and all of us—to get that legislation through. It is incredibly popular legislation. We need to stop fans being ripped off by ticket touts, but it is important to get the legislation right. Given the complexity of what we are proposing, with a price cap, a cap in service fees, resale volume limits, strict legal obligations on the platforms, and strict enforcement, it has to be done right. If there are any loopholes or edges to the legislation, they will be exploited by ticket touts, who are already exploiting fans and the system. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in trying to get the legislation right.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I would also like to start by congratulating the England football team on their win yesterday. While fans are rightly excited to finally see England bring it home this summer, some world cup tickets this year have surged to over £24,000. Fans should not be forced to choose between remortgaging their homes or missing out on supporting their country. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ call for an international fans charter to safeguard supporters against unfair ticket pricing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I know that my colleague has been working incredibly hard on this issue, and I wish the theatre the very best of luck for next week.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

Soaring taxes are putting visitors off coming to the UK—that is what the boss of British Airways says. Does the Minister agree?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I know that Members across this House will be horrified and disgusted at the serious allegations of abuse against women in the TV industry that have emerged recently. Everyone has the right to be safe and treated with dignity. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts recently met Channel 4 about the serious allegations that have emerged about “Married at First Sight”. We are not satisfied as a Government with the response that we have received, and I will discuss that further with Channel 4 in the coming week.

Since we last met, Mr Speaker, we have launched a new partnership with Gareth Southgate and the King’s Trust to provide mentors for young people, as part of our commitment through the national youth strategy to ensure that every young person in this country has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. We have also launched “Every Child Can” to give young people, wherever they live, the chance to find their spark and build the confidence and positive relationships they need to succeed. As the world cup gets under way, and after such a strong start, the whole House will join me in wishing both home nations every success.

[Mr Speaker]

And Bolton Wanderers, who got promoted.

[Peter Swallow]

Whether it is cheering along to every one of those England goals, bawling our eyes out as we watch the heartbreaking social drama “Tip Toe”, or even following the latest twists and turns at Westminster from trusted news sources, it is undoubtable that public sector broadcasting enriches all our lives. We have heard about a lot of the challenges today, but what will the Secretary of State do to champion public sector broadcasting and ensure that it is fit and ready for the future?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend will have heard my answer to colleagues about the future of the BBC. The Government are committed to ensuring that the BBC is set up on a sustainable basis for the future through the charter review, so that it can thrive for many years to come. But the BBC, he is right to say, is not the only public service broadcaster in this country. We have public service broadcasting that is the envy of the world, and the Government are determined to do everything we can to support and safeguard it, including by challenging where necessary—as we have with the response to “Married at First Sight” by Channel 4—when we believe that those standards are not being upheld.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s introductory comments and congratulate England and Scotland on a great start to the world cup.

Since coming to power, this Government have cut funding for school sport, listed places of worship, tourism marketing and so much more, yet they have found billions for welfare, Chagos and inflation-busting pay rises for their union mates. Last Sunday, the Secretary of State went on telly to say that she was in discussions about cutting DCMS spending even further. Well, where and when? And who is to blame: is it the Prime Minister, for his weakness and failure to tackle welfare spending, or is it the Chancellor, for her utter economic incompetence?

[Lisa Nandy]

One thing I learned at school was that the answer to a multiple choice question is usually option (c). The hon. Member missed option (c) out, because the real answer to “Who is to blame for the situation this country is in?” is him and his colleagues, because of the appalling mess they made over 14 years of Conservative government. They cut our armed forces to a size that has not been seen for generations, they refused to treat our veterans with respect, they crashed the economy and they left working-class people in every nation and region paying a very heavy price.

We are investing: we have announced the biggest uplift to arts funding, in a single Parliament, in history; we are investing additional resources in young people to turn around the life chances of a generation; and we have invested more than £1 billion in school sport, which the hon. Member’s Government squandered. He should be ashamed of himself—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have only four minutes left, and we have to get through the Order Paper.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

T2. There are not one but two England teams that currently have a 100% record of success in world cups: not only did the men’s football team have a cracking result against Croatia last night, but the England women’s cricket team have won two from two in their world T20 tournament games so far. Will the Minister say a little more about how we will capitalise on the success of the women’s world T20 and ensure that cricket is a sport that grows and is available to all?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please help me, because nobody is going to get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

Recognising the answers that the right hon. Lady gave earlier, may I ask her to ensure that before the charter review comes out, she absolutely emphasises the need for radio news? Many people do not get to watch television news—I am sure she will be travelling later today and will not be able to watch the TV. May I ask her at this early stage to ensure that the BBC recognises just how important these radio news programmes are?

[Mr Speaker]

He’s got a face for radio!

[Lisa Nandy]

Wow—can I not associate myself with those remarks? [Laughter.]

I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of radio and regional news. Recently, the outgoing director general of the BBC told me that regional news now has greater reach than national news. That includes local radio as well, and we will of course ensure that it becomes a priority through the charter review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. It is clear that the Israeli Government are breaching international law, and this must be called out. The attacks on Palestinian Christians, and indeed any Palestinians, are totally wrong, and we need them to stop. The Bishops of Southwark, Gloucester, Norwich and Chelmsford wrote a joint letter on 5 June to the Right Rev. Dr Imad Haddad, bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Jordan and the Holy Land, about the case of Natalie Abu Dayyeh. They were clear in their letter that Natalie’s detention is a violation of article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention. The bishops have renewed their call on the Government of Israel to immediately abolish their punitive practice of administrative detention, and to immediately release Natalie and all those who are presently being held. We all know that these are cruel measures, and as Christians, we must all speak out for the defenceless, the destitute and the voiceless. I will continue to do all I can in my capacity as both a Member of Parliament and the Second Church Estates Commissioner to ensure that the Church stands against the violence we have seen across the region for far too long.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Bob Blackman.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for not being in the Chamber earlier. The sad reality is that many Christians in the west bank and Gaza face direct challenges for forced conversion to Islam, and in the Holy Lands now there is not an attempt to increase the number of Christians and bear witness. Will the Church reach out to encourage and promote Christianity in the Holy Lands, so that we can see more Christians there, rather than fewer?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I could not agree with him more. Given that he has raised this point here in the Chamber, I will ask my officials to design the programme to ensure that the benefits are felt not just in Stevenage, but across the whole country.

[Mr Speaker]

Let’s bring on a centre-forward— Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for her enthusiasm for what it is being brought forward. I want to ensure that Northern Ireland is very much a part of this; hopefully, the Minister will confirm that it will. With Northern Ireland being part of the host nations of Euro 2028, will the Minister confirm what steps have been taken to ensure that we in Northern Ireland are an intrinsic part of the event and not simply an afterthought? After all, we are part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we want to be part of it.

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Member will remember that when we were first elected to government back in 2024, the Northern Ireland Secretary and I worked very hard to try to ensure that Northern Ireland was able to host part of the games. Because of the timescales and the lack of action under the previous Government, we were not able to do that, but we made a firm commitment that Northern Ireland would feel the full benefit of these games, and we are still deeply committed to that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The successful bid to host the Euros in 2028 made under the previous Conservative Government has enormous potential to economically and culturally benefit the UK, giving fans lifelong memories as football comes home. But to deliver a truly lasting legacy, the Government must commit to protect pitches, properly fund grassroots sports and stop taxing clubs into oblivion. I ask the Minister again: will the Government finally U-turn on their proposed watering down of Sport England’s crucial role in protecting grassroots pitches?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. I have met regularly with the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office, the organising company and, of course, Commonwealth Sport, most recently in January this year. I also attended events in December and August last year. My Department is in regular contact with the organisers and all partners to support the games and ensure they build on Glasgow’s world-class reputation for hosting major events. He is absolutely right: there is a huge opportunity for not just sport but the economic legacy and the tourism industry.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Many of our Commonwealth hopefuls started their careers in community events like parkruns and local sports clubs, and yet the sport and recreation sector is in a state of utter confusion because of the Government’s chaotic roll-out of the new rules on medical provision. The Government have said that they do not want small events to be “overregulated”. What does that even mean? There is a wholesale lack of information from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Care Quality Commission about who will be impacted and what it will cost, and there has been no meaningful impact assessment. The Government have warm words about local sport provision, but their actions never stand up to the test. Can this Minister please give us a definitive answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The game will be over if you are not careful!

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman raises some particular concerns. I am more than happy to look into them for him and ensure that everybody has the opportunity to go and participate in what should be a really positive and global sporting event. I have to say, though, that he has sparked some controversy on the Labour Front Bench with his desire for England to bring football home, because while the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and I strongly agree with him, I am afraid that the Arts Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), has a different view.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend will know that having been through some very difficult times with my own superb football club, Wigan Athletic, I know how much this matters to people in West Brom, and I know what a great champion she is for them. This is precisely why we delivered the Football Governance Act 2025, which clearly sets out the need to protect the integrity and sporting competitiveness of existing competitions. I am sure that the regulator will be looking at this situation closely.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

Thousands of people across the country—although possibly not the Arts Minister—are very excited for the world cup this summer, but that excitement is being ruined by the prospect of fans, not football, coming home. Under new US border directives, fans face having their social media history weaponised against them, with the threat of being turned away at the gates for as little as sharing an unflattering meme of President Trump. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet with US counterparts to ensure British fans are not denied entry at the border, and will she demand that the US embassy picks up the tab for tickets and travel for any fan unfairly denied entry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

It does sound very exciting. The tourism Minister and/or I would be happy to follow that up with my hon. Friend and make sure that we can deliver on that exciting project.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Tourism and hospitality businesses across the UK are struggling. Once profitable businesses are now letting people go, not hiring or closing altogether as a direct result of Labour’s policies, in particular the national insurance increases. That has led to 100,000 job losses in the UK in hospitality and tourism alone over the last two years. The Government have cut funding to our tourism bodies and are now planning on imposing more regulations and a whole new tourism tax. Can the Minister please explain how on earth less support, more regulations and higher taxes are meant to help the tourism industry?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I share my hon. Friend’s passion on this issue. We are intensely aware that, as well as the sweeping cuts to local authorities that were made under the last Government, the rise in energy costs has significantly affected swimming facilities in every part of the country. We have committed £400 million to transform sports facilities over the next four years, and swimming ought to be a beneficiary of that—I will certainly make sure that it is. I have also discussed these issues with the Energy Secretary to make sure that we are pulling every lever at our disposal to ensure that swimming facilities are protected from some of the impacts, in particular of war in the middle east.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

William Hill announced that it is closing 200 betting shops as a result of Labour’s tax policies making them unsustainable. That is Labour’s decisions creating yet more unemployment and undermining sponsorship opportunities and the finances of the horseracing industry overall. Labour may not be as bad as the Greens or Plaid, which I understand want to ban altogether horseracing—a £4 billion industry—and I think greyhound racing, too. Can the Minister assure the racing and gambling communities that the Government will not do any more damage to these sectors, which bring joy to millions of Brits every week?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

5. What steps the Church of England is taking to help tackle child poverty.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Marsha De Cordova.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Mr Speaker, it always feels like I am getting my exercise in at Church questions!

Through community programmes, the Church provides a significant contribution to the local economy, amounting to around £55 billion. That includes food banks, warm spaces, credit unions, school clubs and other forms of family support. The Church recently welcomed the Government’s decision to end the two-child benefit cap, and I know that in my hon. Friend’s constituency 6,200 children will be lifted out of poverty as a result.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

11. What recent progress the Client Board has made on its work.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Marsha De Cordova.

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

indicated dissent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lincoln Jopp]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. In Spelthorne, we love our sport. I was playing walking cricket last week with the cricket club. I have been in the ring at the boxing academy and I have been to the dance academy. We also have Spelthorne FC, Staines & Lammas FC and Ashford Town (Middlesex) FC. I am inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) to come and watch Windsor and Eton play against my Ashford Town (Middlesex) team, and we look forward to a fantastic game. However, the jewel in our crown is the year 11 girls football team at Thamesmead school, which is in the last 32 of the country. Will the Minister wish them the huge amount of success that we all hope they will achieve when they play the Beacon academy from Kent—

[Mr Speaker]

Come on, finish! I call the Secretary of State.

[Lisa Nandy]

We have just announced the first allocations of the £400 million that we are investing in grassroots sport, but I would pay a lot of money to see the hon. Gentleman at a dance academy. May I take the opportunity to wish Thamesmead—both teams actually—the best of success in what should be a fantastic competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for that question, and many hon. Members will thank him for it, as they have raised it with me and the Sport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), consistently over recent years. The Sport Minister is working very closely with her counterpart at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to address this issue. We have made more funding available, but we now need to ensure that it gets to the right places, so that every child can access good swimming provision in their local area.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I congratulate everyone at Team GB for an incredible winter Olympics performance. Like many across the House, I was glued to the excellent coverage during recess, and was pleased to see online that the Sport Minister was in Milan supporting the team. We all know that the true value of Team GB’s success is their ability to inspire the next generation of athletes, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the legacy of these games in both the elite and grassroots facilities required for sports to succeed?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

Boxing clubs like Fight for Peace play a huge role in supporting young people’s physical and mental health. Through Sport England, funding for England Boxing between 2022 and 2029 will be over £9 million. I recently met with the all-party parliamentary group on boxing, and I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further and, indeed, to visit his constituency.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

We all know that actions speak louder than words. So far we have seen a reduction in the urban cricket domes that were committed to by the last Government, the scrapping of our National Citizen Service without anything to replace it and now, supposedly, an argument over who will be funding school sport. Social mobility depends on participation. Research by Sky found that girls who play after-school sport in the UK are 50% more likely to get professional roles as adults. What are the Government doing to address this, and can the Minister give us grassroots examples in our urban communities of where things are improving rather than getting worse?

--- Later in debate ---

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

This Government are championing the UK’s living heritage: the crafts, customs and festivals that are important for local pride and community cohesion. Following the ratification of the 2003 UNESCO convention, we invite communities to submit their traditions to inventories of living heritage in the UK. Some examples are Up Helly Aa on Shetland, the Notting Hill carnival and, some might argue, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t encourage him!

[Rachel Hopkins]

The end of May will mark the 50th Luton international carnival, which is the UK’s largest one-day carnival. I think that 50 years means it qualifies as a UK tradition—it is definitely a Luton tradition. Does the Minister agree that events such as Luton carnival are vital for celebrating the rich cultural diversity of our country and strengthening community cohesion, and may I invite him to Luton to join in with carnival this year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I absolutely share the hon. Member’s assessment about the vital role of youth provision and the devastating impact that the 73% cuts to youth provision under the last Government made to the life chances of young people. The Sport Minister will be more than happy to meet him to discuss that issue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

According to the Office for National Statistics, 3.8 million people report feeling lonely, with young people consistently among the loneliest groups. Is it any wonder when we have seen youth centres shuttered and libraries boarded up, and the very places that bring people together hollowed out? The Liberal Democrats have a plan to change this by creating a new wave of third spaces centred around something simple but incredibly powerful: shared hobbies. We want to bring people with shared interests together, creating places where they can thrive. What is the Minister doing to tackle loneliness through rebuilding community life and shared experiences? Will she seriously consider our proposals for a bold new wave of hobby hubs to help restore the social fabric of our communities?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Minister responds, I point out that the question is linked to Perry Barr in Birmingham. The hon. Member is well away from Birmingham, and I am not quite sure that his question links to youth services—good luck.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am sure, Mr Speaker, that the people of Birmingham Perry Barr are clamouring for a hobby hub. In that spirit, I will address the important point that the hon. Member makes. Our national youth strategy is the first time we have put young people in the driving seat of their own lives. We handed over money and power to a generation of young people who told us that they need three things: somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. That is why we are investing in the next generation of youth centres and youth workers. To the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), I was delighted to be in Grimsby a couple of weeks ago where we opened an OnSide youth zone, which had people queuing for miles down the road to come in and see the incredible provision that we have been able to fund and back. I will certainly consider his proposal, and I would be keen to work with him as we help to rebuild youth work and youth centres, connect people to one another and turn around over a decade of decline.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Bridgwater is the home of carnival. At nearly 180 years old, ours is the oldest carnival in the UK. This fantastic cultural event promotes an active lifestyle among the whole community. However, every year the cost of complying with legislation makes it that little bit harder to continue. Will the Minister meet with me and members of the carnival to discuss what support might be available so that this fantastic spectacle continues for another 180 years?

[Mr Speaker]

That is a shoehorned question—good luck!

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am aware of the issue and would be delighted to meet the hon. Member to discuss it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

Spending on youth services in England saw a 73% reduction under the last Government. Too many areas like my hon. Friend’s then had no youth services. That is why our national youth strategy, backed by over £500 million, is reversing that trend, and I would be happy to discuss it further with him.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

As mentioned by the Secretary of State, this week’s BAFTA awards—a great celebration of British creativity—were marred by the unnecessary airing of involuntary comments by Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson. It appears a microphone was placed close to John, and some offensive comments were aired, despite a two-hour delay. This no doubt well-intended attempt at inclusivity has caused great anxiety to John and great offence to many others. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC and BAFTA must not only investigate this matter but apologise?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is not just about building homes and economic drivers; it is about building cultural and heritage communities as well. It is fantastic to see so many infrastructure projects taking shape across Cambridgeshire and Cambridge this year. Cambridge already has a fantastic cultural offer, with Arts Council England’s national portfolio programme already supporting organisations like the New International Encounter and Oblique Arts, both of which work with communities across the region. I encourage my hon. Friend to ask all of his cultural organisations to look at the £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere fund—that record funding was announced last month—and maybe the city or town of culture programme.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Callum Anderson—not here. I call Rishi Sunak.

[Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)]

Richmond, North Yorkshire, is home to brilliant cultural assets like Richmond castle, the Georgian Theatre Royal, the Station and the Green Howards Museum. It has a unique place in our national story, with a history stretching back to Norman times and a record of successfully putting on community events, like MayFest. This gateway to the dales is also the UK’s most copied place name: it is the original Richmond but there are more than 100 across the world, from America to India. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Richmond Yorkshire Community Interest Company, which is putting a great bid together to be the UK’s town of culture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I am absolutely delighted that the Brits will be held in Manchester this year, and I will, of course, be in attendance. The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point. Whether through our work on the voluntary levy to get funding into grassroots music venues or our work with the music industry to solve the challenges posed by the issues around AI and copyright, he is right to say that we need to work to support what is not just an incredible industry that brings joy to millions of people all over the world, but one of the UK’s best exports.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dame Chi Onwurah to ask the final topical question.

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

Northern industries built this nation, but the previous Government did not care about our industrial heritage, which is one reason why Newcastle’s iconic swing bridge no longer swings. On her recent visit, the Minister for Heritage encouraged us to take the steps necessary to safeguard its future, but what help can the Secretary of State provide to support the funding necessary to get the swing bridge swinging?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

St Nicholas church in Shepperton in my constituency made an application under the listed places of worship scheme to get £16,000 of VAT back on essential repairs that it has made. It got an auto-reply saying that the scheme has been used up and that there is no money left. On behalf of the Church Commissioners, will the hon. Member entreat the Government to look again at that application and see whether the VAT can be reclaimed?

[Mr Speaker]

I am not quite sure that question is relevant, actually.

[Marsha De Cordova]

That is what I was going to say.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, do not worry about it. Let us move on.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

3. What assessment the Church has made of the potential implications for its policies of trends in levels of church attendance during Christmas 2025.

Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

As, I think, the first black MP ever to represent Liverpool, my hon. Friend’s achievement is absolutely noted in this House. The way in which she has carried that work forward into this House, to ensure that she may be the first, but she certainly will not be the last, and that the voices of all people will be heard, is something that I deeply admire, and I know many other Members feel the same.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the vibrancy of the Liverpool city region has always been built on the most diverse range of music, voices and experiences. That most quintessentially British band, the Beatles, drew on their Irish heritage, Indian influences and the experience of black Americans from the south, and brought that vibrant music scene to Liverpool. I am working with the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others to make sure that we continue that tradition and that the widest range of voices from across Liverpool are heard as part of that. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to try to get to Question 10.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and training— I said that as quickly as I could!

The music and dance scheme funds exceptional schools that train the next generation of artists who will go on to lead the industry, both on and off the stage. Those schools nurture talent regardless of wealth, and are the very definition of social mobility, but some are now at risk of closure because the fund is not guaranteed beyond next year. Will the Minister guarantee secure, ringfenced funding so that those vital institutions can continue to increase access to an industry that has been identified as a leading area of growth?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Have a youth zone.

[Stephanie Peacock]

Indeed, Mr Speaker; we have a brilliant one opening in Barnsley very shortly. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly powerful point. This Government are taking a new approach to youth services, which is why we will be launching our national youth services strategy shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is of course important to support our music industry, including studios, and that is at the heart of what we are trying to do through the music growth fund, which has £30 million in it. The music levy goes straight into grassroots music, supporting studios.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame.

I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

We support all aspects of sport for women and girls, and we are working alongside the sport sector and local leaders to develop a place-based approach to funding. We launched our women’s sport taskforce to drive a decade of change in women’s sport. We will ensure that we deliver facilities that each area needs, so that women and girls can participate in sport in Greater Manchester and across the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

In terms of the resale of concert tickets, we have taken a decision after a long period of consultation to cap the resale at the original price. The hon. Gentleman mentions some examples, and there are others; just recently, I looked at some Radiohead tickets that were on sale originally for £100 and were being resold on one of these platforms for more than £1,000. That is an absolute rip-off for fans and has gone on in plain sight for far too long, which is why we have announced that tickets will be resold for the original price. Time is up for the ticket touts.

[Mr Speaker]

What did you pay for your Oasis tickets, Jim?

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

10. What discussions she has had with the BBC on renewal of the charter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

The BBC removed a part of Rutger Bregman’s Reith lecture in which he alleged that Donald Trump was the most openly corrupt President in US history, doing so only after legal advice prompted by Mr Trump’s lawsuit against it. The threat of legal action is creating a dangerous precedent for media censure. If the national broadcaster cannot air robust and defensible claims even in a series of lectures designed to spark debate on contemporary issues, what hope is there for any part of our free press effectively to challenge power? We know that the Prime Minister has spoken directly with Mr Trump since the lawsuit was filed, so can the Secretary of State confirm whether the PM raised the issue of the BBC and insisted that Trump drop his ridiculous lawsuit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Charters]

Away tickets cost £45 at championship Coventry and £30 at league one Mansfield Town. Even some national league games are getting close to £30 for York City fans, when premiership clubs Arsenal, Liverpool and United all have a £30 cap. Does the Secretary of State support extending an away ticket cap across all leagues as a ceiling, not a target?

[Mr Speaker]

Or watch rugby league.

[Lisa Nandy]

“Or watch rugby league”, says Mr Speaker. Football is nothing without the fans, and my hon. Friend is right to say that it must be affordable for people across the country. The Premier League has shown enormous leadership through the £30 away cap—that is an excellent example of that principle. This is precisely why this Government wasted no time in passing the Football Governance Act 2025 with the permission of both Houses, which implements minimum engagement standards, including requiring clubs to consult fans on ticket prices.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland?

At Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions in September, the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that the Government have “no plans” to bring in a tourism tax and admitted that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”, yet this week the Government announced that they are bringing in a tourism tax. When did they start planning for this tax? Was any form of impact assessment carried out before they decided that whacking up taxes on a sector that has already lost 90,000 jobs because of increases in last year’s Budget is such a great idea?

[Mr Speaker]

It is topicals. Come on.

[Lisa Nandy]

I think the hon. Gentleman united us all, wishing a happy Lancashire Day, but perhaps that was the beginning and end of the cross-party unity. I am enormously proud that this Government have finally acted on the calls from mayors across the political spectrum—including one Boris Johnson in 2013 when he was the Mayor of London—to implement a visitor levy on short-term overnight accommodation. We have not just done that: we have handed the power to regions themselves to implement it. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the burden on industry. He will know full well that the levy will be paid by visitors, not by the tourism industry. It surely cannot be right that England is the only country in the G7 where a national Government prevent their local authorities and mayors from implementing tourist levies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry, folks, but we have run out of time. We really do need an hour for Culture, Media and Sport questions, and I know the Secretary of State agrees with me. It would be much more wonderful.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly will do that. The Archbishop’s delegation also visited the west bank, where he met Christian Palestinian families affected by settler violence and faced a tense stand-off with armed settlers before being ordered to leave by the Israeli police. We must not lose sight of Gaza and the west bank. The ceasefire is not peace. Land disputes are rising in frequency. Ancient olive groves are being uprooted, and in Gaza food, fuel, medicine and aid remain critically short. The Archbishop commented on his return:

“They do feel let down and forgotten by the rest of the world, and, as Palestinian Christians, by the churches of the world, that here in the land of the Holy One, those who follow him are being squeezed out of existence and forced from their homes. I promised those women I would tell their story and enable their voices to be heard.”

I thank my hon. Friend for making sure that those voices are being heard today.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agree with everything the Leader of the House has just said. The fact is, the pressure by illegal settlers on Christians and Muslims in Jerusalem and the west bank is absolutely appalling, particularly in Taybeh, the last Christian town on the west bank. I have been to the west bank and have seen for myself what is going on. The pressure on the Armenians in Jerusalem and the raising of the issue of the church property tax by the Mayor of Jerusalem —this has to stop. The whole country and the Church—all the Churches—must speak out and say that Palestinian Christians and Muslims have a right to live in peace, justice and security in their homeland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

We have heard concerns from across the House on this issue, and the Youth Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to discuss it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

We all recognise the value of youth services, but the right hon. Lady will be well aware that many youth services, from mental health support to sport provision, are commissioned and then provided by charities, which are under quite severe financial pressures, yet incredibly charities were not exempt from Labour’s national insurance increases. Even children’s hospices were not. Why not? Is the Department engaging constructively with the Chancellor about the plight of children’s and youth charities? There is no point having a youth strategy if the Government are undermining the viability of the providers of the services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman lays out the difficulties, of which there are many, for the live music sector and potentially the venues, many of them in his constituency. We want to see 50% of all ticket sales for stadium and arena shows in 2026 enter that music levy; that is this Government’s aspiration and we encourage all ticket providers to do so. In the autumn 2024 Budget, as he suggests, the Chancellor set out plans to transform the business rates system over this Parliament. Those reforms will provide certainty and support to businesses, including music venues. The Government have been engaging with the live music sector on business rates reforms and will set out further policy details in next month’s Budget.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his place and I look forward to working with him—I am delighted to hear that he is a keen musician. Since Brexit, British musicians’ European tours have dropped by around 9% year on year, as a mountain of bureaucracy blocks those hoping to cut their teeth on the European circuit. In Frome and East Somerset, I am lucky to have musicians who travel in Europe, but who will not have a team of people to do the paperwork for them. Will the Minister update us on what tangible steps have been taken for touring artists since the so-called reset deal, so that our musicians can take centre stage in Europe once more?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for being an outstanding champion for sport in his community. I would encourage Penrice school and others who have similar challenges to approach the Football Foundation, through which we fund floodlights and other small-scale investments. Previous funding allocations have been far too prescriptive. We believe communities know best what they need and through the Football Foundation, we are determined to deliver it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Earlier this week, the Committee heard from Henry Hughes and Nathan Young, two brilliant swimmers who are travelling to Tokyo next month to represent Britain as part of the Deaflympics. The competition has been running for over 100 years—longer than the Paralympics, in fact—but deaf athletes are the only disabled elite sports group who have no access to either Government or UK Sport funding. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing all our deaf Olympians the very best of luck in Tokyo next month? Will she also agree to meet them on their return with UK Deaf Sport to discuss how this terrible situation can be improved and how they can be supported much better in the future?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member, as always, for raising an issue that has been raised with both me and the Minister for Sport. We are working with UK Sport to try to resolve it. Of course we will be cheering our athletes on in Tokyo—I am really looking forward to that—but we know that those opportunities are not available to all. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

This has been an incredible year for women’s sport, with both the Lionesses and the Red Roses inspiring a generation with their fantastic performances and historic successes on the pitch. The previous Conservative Government worked in partnership alongside the national lottery, Sport England and various national bodies to help to support these incredible athletes with investment in grassroots facilities, including the £30 million Lionesses fund, which directly increased opportunities for women’s and girls’ sports. Beyond the sentiments that the Secretary of State has already expressed today, will she confirm whether her Government will support a new Lionesses and Red Roses fund specifically for women’s sports? Will she also confirm that fairness and safety will remain the key pillars of guidance for female sports?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for his work in supporting not just local journalism but local journalists. They are an essential part of our democracy, and it was not lost on me that local newspapers helped to counter the misinformation and disinformation that was spreading online like wildfire during the disorder last summer. It is why we are developing a local media strategy, working with many of the organisations that he mentioned, but I would be delighted to meet him, other Members of Parliament and the NUJ to discuss this further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his role, and I thank the Secretary of State for her welcoming comments to me earlier. She is right: we have had many conversations in the past about many aspects of DCMS not being overtly party political, and that is a good thing.

However, there are areas of disagreement, including this Government’s anti-business attitude and policies. Increasing national insurance and business rates has caused untold damage to swathes of DCMS sectors. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? At the very least, can she assure me that she is begging and pleading with the Chancellor not to do any more damage to those sectors in the upcoming Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry but I have to pull stumps as we are well over time. DCMS questions are so popular—many hon. Members have not been able to get in—that I believe we really need an hour on the subject, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. I know that the Secretary of State wanted to congratulate Hull KR on its treble in rugby league and on beating Wigan Warriors in the final, and I am sure that she will be supporting Great Britain when we play Australia a week on Saturday.

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

Life Sciences Investment

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

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

[Ian Murray]

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

[Julia Lopez]

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

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t count on it.

[Julia Lopez]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have points of order in the middle of the Minister’s response; they come at the end.

[Ian Murray]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

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

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

[Ian Murray]

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

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

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

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