debates/debates2025-07-08d conversation_25
Source: hansard.parliament.uk (2025-07-08)

UK Parliament Hansard data: debates/debates2025-07-08d conversation_25

Lisa Smart:My  constituent Andy from Offerton often plays a caring role for his adult son, as his son has serious mental ill health. During his son’s recent stay in prison, Andy struggled to get quality information from the prison about his son’s health situation and living conditions. What more will the Government do to ensure that parent carers such as Andy get the information they need and deserve during a child’s stay in prison? \p Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Lady is right: it is important that parent carers get the information they need that helps with rehabilitation and getting things to the right place. If she wants to write to me about that particular case, I will look into it and write back to her. \p Rachael Maskell: Survive is a York-based charity providing specialist services and trauma-specific interventions to survivors of sexual violence and abuse. However, it has had to close its waiting list because it does not have the capacity to meet the demand. Will the Minister look at providing additional funding, so that we can get those vital services to survivors and victims now and they do not have to wait? \p Alex Davies-Jones: My hon. Friend has contacted me and written to me on this issue. She will know that we in the Department are looking at the spending allocations following the spending review. However, we have protected and ringfenced special support for sexual violence victims, because we know that there is huge demand coming through the system and we need to keep those victims engaged in the criminal justice system to ensure they get their day in court and justice is served. \p Dr Caroline Johnson: I read a recent BBC article about an asylum seeker who had violently raped a teenage girl. He has been convicted and given a sentence of nine years in  prison, followed by three years on licence, after which he will need to be deported. I am concerned that such individuals, during their period on licence, pose a risk to British women and girls. Does the Lord Chancellor agree, and will she ensure that people go straight from prison to deportation where appropriate? \p Shabana Mahmood: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point. It is why we are reducing the threshold for the early removal scheme and looking carefully with the Home Office at the Gauke review’s recommendation of effectively sentencing to deportation, to deal with the very types of cases that she has raised. \p Juliet Campbell: I welcome the Government’s efforts to reform sentencing following the sentencing review. I am confident that those steps will end the chaos left behind by the previous Government. I am particularly interested in rehabilitation as a priority in sentencing. A troubling statistic remains: studies have shown that 30% of prisoners in the UK are diagnosed as dyslexic, and there are probably many more who are undiagnosed, meaning that the numbers are much higher. Will the Minister tell me what steps are being taken to support dyslexic people in prison and to prevent reoffending following release? \p Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of rehabilitation in the panoply of things that we do in the criminal justice system. She is also right to highlight the number of prisoners and people in the criminal justice system who have dyslexia, which is one of the many neurodiverse conditions in the prison service. Every prison has a neurodiversity officer who co-ordinates activity to address that in each prison, but if she wants to write to me about the issue, I would be happy to respond in more detail. \p Sarah Pochin: The Secretary of State will be aware of the deeply troubling revelations over the weekend of the so-called Halal bride website. Does she agree that such practices have absolutely no place in Britain? \p Shabana Mahmood: The regulation of websites and content falls either within Home Office responsibilities for criminal law or with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and I will happily pick up with them the detail around the regulatory issues that are raised by that case. \p John Slinger: When I visited HMP Onley, the nearest prison to my constituency, I had the great privilege to be given a tour by the governor, Mark Allen and to see the excellent work of the staff. I wonder whether the Secretary of State would comment on the importance of offerings by organisations and companies such as Greene King which provide cafés and restaurants so that prisoners can be rehabilitated while they are in prison. \p Nicholas Dakin: Greene King does outstanding work, as do other organisations in our prison service. They are important partners in delivering better justice. \p Gregory Stafford: The Lord Chancellor rightly rejected murderer Alan Jermey’s Parole Board request for open conditions, for which his daughters and I are extremely grateful. I understand  that Mr Jermey is now legally challenging the decision, so will the Lord Chancellor revisit my request for a meeting with her about this issue? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. Member will know that, with a judicial challenge, there will be some constraints as to what I can say publicly, and indeed even privately in a meeting. I will take advice to ensure that nothing compromises the legal process. \p Jonathan Brash: The Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 has now received Royal Assent and I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on her swift action, but it would never have been necessary if sentencing guidelines were not the preserve of an unelected, undemocratic quango in the form of the Sentencing Council. Does she agree that we need a democratic lock, or even a vote in this place, to approve new sentencing guidelines? \p Shabana Mahmood: I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that that whole episode revealed a democratic deficit. I am reviewing the roles and powers and we will come forward with legislative changes in due course. \p Alex Easton: In the light of the tragic loss of young mother Sarah Montgomery, who was seven months pregnant, due to violence, which has left two young girls without a mother and impacted the entire community of Donaghadee in my constituency, do the Government agree that early interventions, particularly through early education, are essential? Furthermore, can we look at intensifying our efforts to prevent domestic violence against women and young girls and at increasing sentences to deter that type of crime? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, which will have hit all of us incredibly hard. It is horrific and just goes to show that violence against women and girls is at epidemic levels in every corner of the United Kingdom, not just in England and Wales. I am due to meet my counterparts across the devolved nations shortly to figure out exactly how we can best join up to tackle this issue as a whole, because it will take a societal response. If the hon. Member wants to meet me to discuss this further, I would be happy to do so. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: The Minister will be aware that the recent pathfinder family court pilots have been seen as largely successful. This is an opportunity to put children at the centre of these cases and to end the presumption of contact which puts partners and children of abusers at risk. Will she please advise me as to the next steps in this process? \p Sarah Sackman: I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and I am grateful to him for raising the pathfinder court. These pilots are proving incredibly successful. They front-load a lot of the evidence gathering, they put the safety of children and family arrangements right at their heart, and they are proving a really successful   model, which is why we plan to roll them out further. As part of that, as he has heard, we will be publishing our response to the presumption review very shortly. \p Joe Robertson: The backlog of cases in the Isle of Wight coroner service is the worst in the country, causing pain and distress to too many families, some of whom are waiting 800 days to find out what is happening to their loved ones. Will the Minister offer any comment or support to those families, and will she agree to meet me to discuss how we deal with the problem of the Isle of Wight coroner? \p Alex Davies-Jones: I thank the hon. Member for his engagement on this issue. He has written to me and we have had quite productive conversations about it. I recently met the chief coroner to discuss the specific issue on the Isle of Wight, because we know that the delays are causing untold turmoil to families in an already awful, traumatic process. I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss a way forward, but I am reassured by the action being taken by the chief coroner to address the issue in the Isle of Wight directly. \p Lee Dillon: A constituent of mine who recently fled France because of domestic violence and abuse, after being a habitual resident for just 21 days, has been ordered to return to France next week under protective measures. What more can the Government do to protect women fleeing domestic violence in relation to the Hague convention and the Child Abduction Act 1984? \p Alex Davies-Jones: The hon. Member will know that I cannot comment on specific cases, but if he wants to write to me, I will happily look at that. I recently had productive conversations about the Hague convention and others, and we will happily develop those conversations further. \p Jim Allister: May I associate myself with your remarks, Mr Speaker, at the outset of these proceedings about the passing of Lord Tebbit? Lord Tebbit was a great friend of Northern Ireland, particularly of the many fellow victims of IRA terrorism.

May I return the Lord Chancellor to the subject of the backlogs in our Crown courts? In Northern Ireland, we have the worst of all records; it takes an average of 551 days to conclude a Crown court case. Murder trials have been stalled since last September with no new start date. We have a Minister of Justice locally who talks the talk but never walks the walk, and particularly does not walk the walk in settling the ongoing remuneration issue that is holding things up. Would the Lord Chancellor bring some pressure to bear on the local Justice Minister to sort this matter out? \p Shabana Mahmood: The hon. and learned Member will know that for devolved matters it would of course be deeply inappropriate for me to try to influence or put pressure on the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland. On a cross-UK basis, we regularly meet our fellow Justice Ministers in the devolved Administrations, and I will happily pick up those conversations in a constructive way. \p Pat McFadden: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s resilience action plan.

We are living through a period of profound change: upheaval in the international order, conflicts raging in the middle east, a war being waged on the continent of Europe and old norms overturned on what feels like a daily basis. Against that backdrop, the Government’s first duty of keeping the public safe becomes all the more important. Resilience is a measure of deep strength and, at the same time, a measure of insurance.

By deep strength, I mean fundamentals such as a good NHS, a strong spirit of community, a secure energy system and good flood defences. All those things increase our national resilience. We saw the vulnerabilities exposed by the covid pandemic in the NHS and in the different impact it had on different workers, ethnic minorities and members of the community. Resilience has to be for all, not just for some.

By insurance, I mean the emergency systems, scientific capability, scale-up capability and other measures we would need in a crisis. Everyone knows they need insurance, but we also know that no one spends their whole income on it. That is true for a country, too. By definition, preparation for the worst has to sit alongside the week-to-week provision of the essential services that government run. There is no perfectly correct answer to the balance between those two things. What is certain is that the Government have to think through the scenarios and try to ensure that the country is as well prepared as possible.

Today we set out how we will do that with the publication of our resilience action plan, a chronic risk analysis and an update on the UK biological security strategy. No Government can stop every risk from materialising. Every Member of this House understands that we live in a world where we are susceptible to a much wider range of risks than we were even a decade ago: cyber-attacks on household names, trade measures that can trigger fluctuations in the prices of food or household goods, power outages, the possibility of another pandemic—these risks are real and are all different.

The answer to those shared challenges lies in making all parts of society better prepared: our economy, our defences, our health systems, our infrastructure, our borders, our industrial base and our energy security. Much of it comes down to the unglamorous work of delivering improved public services. That is what we might call “deep resilience”—an NHS that is strong enough to cope, an energy system that does not leave us as exposed to the spikes in the price of oil seen in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and a science base that can be called into action quickly. It depends on the whole of society—business; the public sector; local, national and devolved governments; civil society; local resilience forums; and every Member of this House—all sharing in the burden and pulling in the same direction.

The action plan sets us up to do that with a focus on three areas: first, assessing on a continuous basis how resilient the UK is, so that we can effectively target interventions and resources when and where they are needed; secondly, enabling the whole of society to take  action to increase its resilience, which will rely on us changing the culture around resilience by making it part of our everyday lives in practical and simple ways—be it the owner of a business introducing new cyber-defences, or a more informed public that knows what to do in order to prepare for different emergencies—and thirdly, improving core public sector resilience. We have thousands of frontline public sector workers who are integral to our resilience at a local and national level, from the employees who keep the energy grid running to local emergency responders. I pay tribute to them all.

The action plan brings together a range of policies. We have already set out our proposals to increase defence spending. We are earmarking £4.2 billion of funding for new flood defences and £370 million to secure the UK’s telecoms networks, and opening a new resilience academy in North Yorkshire that will train 4,000 people every year from the private and public sectors. Later this year, we will have the largest ever national pandemic exercise that will test the UK’s readiness for future pandemics. We are also developing a risk vulnerability map for public servants, applying one of the principal lessons of previous tragedies, which is that all too often it is the most vulnerable in our society who are hardest hit in the event of an emergency.

On top of each of those steps, the action plan and our update on the biological security strategy set out new additional measures, including a nationwide test of the UK’s emergency alert. That will take place at around 3 pm on Sunday 7 September 2025, and it will involve a notification going out to 87 million mobile phones at once. It will be the second time we have used the test on a nationwide basis. It will last for around 10 seconds. The mobile phone alert system will play a critical role in making sure that we are ready for all kinds of future emergencies. In the run-up to the test, we will work with stakeholders, including domestic violence charities, to ensure that the public has as much warning as possible. As well as the alert, we will be pushing ahead with activity to promote the Government’s “Prepare” website to help individuals, households and communities understand how they can be ready for a range of different emergencies. We continue to support local resilience forums in England because they are essential in planning for, and responding to, incidents whenever they occur.

Our biological security strategy includes £15 million from the integrated security fund to help address capability gaps across Government and beyond. That is in addition to the £1 billion of investment that we unveiled a fortnight ago for a new network of national biosecurity centres to strengthen our defences against biological incidents, accidents and attacks. The defence and security accelerator also includes £1 million for projects with universities such as Queens University Belfast and Cardiff University. My colleague the Health Secretary will publish a pandemic preparedness framework explaining how the Government are bringing together the vital scientific research needed to prepare for any future pandemic. I am also able to announce that soon the National Situation Centre and the devolved Governments will sign a memorandum of understanding to ensure that every part of the UK has the best data to prepare and respond to crises.

Those practical steps will help the UK to meet the moment when an emergency comes. Resilience is not a button to press; it comes from the realisation that we  need deep strength and the ability to scale up quickly when the situation requires it. That is why the Government’s investment plans, announced in the recent spending review, and the actions outlined in this plan are so important. We will not be resilient unless we invest for the future—a stronger NHS, more and better housing, better energy security, utilising our deep research and development base—and, on top of that, have the capabilities to get going fast in an emergency. That is what this plan sets out. I commend it to the House. \p Alex Burghart: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and the associated documentation. I also thank him for the date on which the UK emergency alert will be tested—he can only have chosen it to notify the country that it is my birthday. I shall very much look forward to the alarm at 3 pm.

I understand why the Government want to plan for resilience. It is understandable that the Government would want to come forward with a plan, faced with the collapsing economy, a collapsing Government, capital flight, spiralling borrowing costs and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s warning this morning that the Chancellor’s latest U-turns have left Britain more vulnerable and less able to respond to future crises. As the Minister said, the plan published today builds on the work of the previous Government on the roll-out of the national emergency alert system, the expansion of biosecurity preparedness, investment in flood protection and ensuring better cross-departmental collaboration on resilience and emergency preparedness.

The Minister said in his statement that he was looking for an assessment “on a continuous basis”. The report sets out the intention for data collection in this area, but it would be useful to hear by when that new data framework will be available for us to scrutinise. He said that he wished to enable

“the whole of society to take action”,

but I rather wonder how he intends the whole of society to find out about this. The plan calls on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to provide guidance on developing cohesion strategies and to monitor tensions. However, that does not sit easily with the fact that the Government are not currently tackling Islamist extremism properly, that they dragged their feet on a national inquiry into grooming gangs, and that they seem to be bringing forward a highly controversial definition of Islamophobia.

The Minister referred to

“improving core public sector resilience”.

That is certainly to be welcomed, particularly on a day on which it has been announced that resident doctors have voted in favour of strikes, which will result in industrial action in January. It was notable that the plan does not mention an ability to deal with widespread industrial action. Are the Government planning for the eventuality of a general strike?

The Minister also mentioned the increase in defence spending, which we know is a form of smoke and mirrors. We understand that the 1.5% in addition to the hypothetical 3.5% includes things such as tunnels and  roads, but we have not been provided with a baseline for what is currently spent in those areas. How will we know when the Government have got to 1.5%, or indeed whether they are at 1.5% already?

As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out, the previous Government took steps to extend our capabilities and published the first UK biological security strategy. I was interested that, in this strategy, there is a reference to exploring the utility of waste water analysis, which had great success during the pandemic. Does the Minister intend to bring that back on a wide scale? It would be welcome if that was the case.

I am pleased that the Government are pressing ahead with the biothreats radar, which was a Conservative idea, but two years after our announcement there is still no go-live date. This could be a major asset to national resilience, but we need to know when it will come online. The CDL also told the House that a fully operational radar will give us near real-time warning of emerging pathogens, but the World Health Organisation is still reminding China to hand over its basic virological data on covid-19. Can he guarantee that the radar will allow the UK to independently verify when a state actor chooses to withhold or delay information?

I was interested to read about Exercise Pegasus, the preparations for pandemic exercise. However, as the Minister will know, different types of pandemic behave in different ways. Which pandemics were tested in Pegasus? Which were tested in Alkarab? It is important that the House understands what the Government are looking at in that regard. \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Opposition spokesman for his questions. Several things have contributed to the need for a fresh look at all of this: the experience of covid, the changing geopolitical situation and the changing threat picture. It is important to be both flexible and dynamic when considering resilience.

Let me turn to the shadow Minister’s specific points. In advance of his birthday on 7 September, I wish him many happy returns. He asked about data collection. That does not have a date; it is a constant effort. The capacity to use data in a better way today than perhaps we could have done in the past is an additional weapon in our armoury.

In terms of the whole of society finding out about this, we have good, sensible advice on gov.uk/prepare. I encourage the public to look at it, and I hope that these preparation measures become normal for people in the future. The strength of community is very important in community resilience.

The shadow Minister referred to strikes in the NHS. We have given the NHS significant financial support and made a very fair pay offer. We very much value the work that doctors do. We hope that everyone in the NHS realises that we are a Government who support the NHS and want to work with the staff, and that industrial action will contribute nothing to that goal.

The shadow Minister referred to biological security. We are making important investments into that, including the opening of the new Weybridge lab announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a couple of weeks ago.

Exercise Pegasus has not happened yet; it will happen in the autumn. However, the shadow Minister is right on one thing: it is important not to fight the last war and assume that the next pandemic will behave in the same way as the last one. We have to be flexible in our response and ensure that we plan for different kinds of scenarios. \p Matt Western: I welcome this statement. The point about Exercise Pegasus reminds me of Exercise Cygnus, the findings of which, I am saddened to say, the previous Government ignored in advance of what then became the pandemic we faced. In recent weeks we have seen attacks on Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and others, and the fire at Heathrow, so this action plan is incredibly welcome. It states that the Government will develop a

“consolidated, data-driven picture of our resilience baseline”

to show how resilient the UK is at any moment, and a new cyber-resilience index that highlights the critical national infrastructure at greatest risk. Will my right hon. Friend give the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy, which I chair, access to those indices, and may I suggest that we help him in developing them? \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to the Chair of the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy for his questions. The National Cyber Security Centre has been working closely with Marks & Spencer and the other victims of recent cyber-attacks. I look forward to appearing before his Committee in a few days and working closely with it in the future. \p Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. The world is now less stable and more insecure than at any time since the cold war. Consequently, the Government must ensure that the British people and the United Kingdom are prepared in the event that our country or an overseas territory is threatened. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome any measures to strengthen our resilience, especially to the cyber-security threat—a new and evolving threat against which we must be armed.

While the Liberal Democrats welcome the alert test, we call for a wider public information campaign to support resilience building across the UK, and to ensure that the public are properly ready for any potential future conflict or disaster. Perhaps we could take lessons from our Scandinavian neighbours, who are always working to address future threats and providing information to their citizens. Information should be provided through a number of different means, including leaflets and traditional broadcast.

While we welcome the alert test, websites and text alerts will miss millions of British people—those without phones, or without signal or battery—so we need to be ready on all fronts, and not just rely on single text alerts. Will the Government accept the Liberal Democrats’ call to launch a national awareness campaign that draws on different modes of contact?

I welcome the talk about being more resilient to climate emergencies. We have all seen the horrifying pictures and upsetting stories from the floods in Texas  in recent days, and in this country, we have had one of the hottest starts to a summer in UK history; it is vital that the Government are not caught unawares as the temperature rises. Last week, I had a meeting in my constituency with Thames Water, which told me that it is preparing drought mitigation measures. The regular supply of water to people’s properties, businesses and agricultural land is vital to livelihoods and everyday lives. What steps are the Government taking, and perhaps putting in their new action plan, to ensure that any drought mitigation measures will not significantly impact the country in the coming months? \p Pat McFadden: I welcome the hon. Lady’s questions, and join her in extending our sympathies to all those affected by the terrible events in Texas, where we saw the power of nature, and saw so many innocent lives lost.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments on the alert test. The test will be publicised well in advance, including through work with domestic violence charities and others, so that everybody knows what is coming. Information for the public is available on the gov.uk/prepare website.

I agree with the hon. Lady that dialogue with the public on resilience is important. In many other countries, that is absolutely normal. Perhaps it has been a little less normal in this country, but we should change that. On risks in the immediate term, our excellent Cobra team in the Cabinet Office scans the horizon constantly for these things, and it is always prepared and ready to go in any emergency. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Minister for his statement. As a former Leicestershire county councillor, and as a health scrutineer before, during and after the pandemic, it was clear to me that local knowledge from our public health teams and NHS services played an important role; however, they know that they could have gone further and done so much more. Will he reassure me and my constituents that insights from local resilience forums and local experts will feed into planning and preparation for any future pandemic? \p Pat McFadden: That is a good question. It is really important that we learn from the experience of the pandemic a few years ago, but we must not fall into the trap, as I said, of assuming that the next emergency will be exactly the same. We have to be flexible in our response. The next emergency, and indeed the next pandemic, may be quite different in character from the one that we went through a few years ago. \p Desmond Swayne: Will the preparations take into account the lasting, disastrous consequences of lockdown, and the blithering absurdity of face coverings? \p Pat McFadden: The preparations should take everything into account. \p Leigh Ingham: I thank the Minister for the statement. I welcome the announcement that the Government will undertake a full national test of the emergency alert system in September. How will they ensure that rural areas such as Church Eaton in my  constituency, which is still waiting for its phone mast to be activated, and Maer, which has had long-term difficulties with mobile reception, can receive the message? My understanding is that the alert is dependent on 4G access. \p Pat McFadden: My hon. Friend is right. About 95% of the population is covered by 4G or 5G access, and we are working constantly with the telecoms companies to improve that coverage. That is an ongoing effort. \p Alistair Carmichael: I welcome the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’s commitment that resilience must be for all, not just for some. The people of Shetland will hold him to those words. A few years ago, we suffered a catastrophic power outage for about seven days in winter storms, leaving many of my constituents relying on copper wire phone lines for their connection to the outside world. If that copper wire is withdrawn without sufficient resilience being built into its replacement, the consequences for my constituents could be catastrophic. Will he, through his office, engage with private sector organisations when they are making these strategic decisions for us all? \p Pat McFadden: The right hon. Gentleman represents perhaps the outermost part of the UK, and when he says that resilience should be for all, he is absolutely right. We have seen the effect of long-term—days is “long-term”—power outages, including, in recent times, during Storm Éowyn. He made a good point about ensuring resilience when systems change and new technology comes in, and we will certainly have a dialogue with telecoms companies about that. \p Jonathan Davies: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement. I was pleased to hear him reference the £370 million that the Government are investing to secure our telecommunications network. Will that extend to our undersea network of cables, which face perpetual threats from the Russian shadow fleet and others who are under a thin veil of plausible deniability? If those networks are disrupted, it will create chaos in the UK. \p Pat McFadden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question. Subsea cables are vital to the working of our economy and our defences, and those who wish us harm know that. It must be part of our national defence and our defence thinking to defend our international communication structures under the sea. \p Andrew Murrison: The tier 1 exercise that CDL mentioned in response to Baroness Hallett’s recommendation 6 in module 1 of her report on covid 19 is much to be welcomed. However, he will be aware that part of the problem with Exercise Cygnus in 2016 was that the results were not made public at the time, and a lot of it remained classified. In the light of what has been said today, will he ensure that the Government’s approach to this exercise is different, and that the results are made public quickly, so that they can be interrogated? \p Pat McFadden: Any national exercise of this kind will show up both strengths and weaknesses. It is important that we communicate the learnings from these exercises—both the strengths and the weaknesses. \p Gordon McKee: The national risk register identifies cyber-attacks on critical national infrastructure as being of moderate likelihood but potentially catastrophic in impact. The National Audit Office has identified 58 key Government systems that have substantial cyber-resilience gaps. What more can the Government do to plug those gaps and ensure that our systems are secure? \p Pat McFadden: This is very important. There is no doubt that there are gaps in cyber-defences, and there is an ongoing battle to get up to speed. Many legacy systems that have been in place for decades are difficult to replace, because new has been built on old. We are investing, but it is an ongoing effort to close the gaps to stop those who would undermine the vital public services that rely on those systems. \p Caroline Voaden: One of the vulnerabilities that we saw in the pandemic, after the invasion of Ukraine and even during the “beast from the east” winter storm was to food supplies, but I did not hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refer to food in his statement. Finland’s national food supply can sustain the country for up to nine months; it includes strategic food reserves and grain stockpiles. Germany advises citizens to keep a 10-day stockpile of food and water. Our reliance on imports makes our food supply vulnerable to global events such as pandemics and geopolitical instability. What action are the Government taking to increase our food security? \p Pat McFadden: The gov.uk/prepare website refers to having a supply of food and water in case of an emergency. We recently struck an agreement with the European Union that will remove a huge amount of the cost, bureaucracy and delay in ensuring the free flow of food to and from the European Union. That is a good agreement for food security. \p Claire Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he rightly says, planning and responding to these kinds of incidents—whether it is the pandemic, storms, flooding or major water outages, like the one that happened in my constituency earlier this year—requires people across all levels of Government to work with communities. How will the resilience plan launched today encourage closer working between the devolved Governments and the UK Government? \p Pat McFadden: My experience in the year since the general election is that on matters such as this, co-operation and joint working between the UK Government and the devolved Governments is good. I am pleased to say that this is an area where party politics is usually left outside the door, and I think that is right. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: when an emergency hits, we need good co-operation and dialogue with either the devolved Governments or local authorities and local resilience forums, which I referred to in my statement. \p Martin Vickers: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster referenced the considerable spending on flood defences over the next few years. He will be aware that the port of Immingham and much of the south bank of the Humber was severely affected by a tidal surge in 2013. Although much work has been done in recent years, can he give an assurance to businesses and residents that the south bank of the Humber will remain a priority for increased flood defence expenditure? \p Pat McFadden: We have set aside some £4 billion for investment in flood defences. The details of when and where that will be spent will be set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. \p Christopher Bloore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. One of the most striking conclusions from the covid inquiry was that vulnerable people were the hardest hit. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that support will reach vulnerable people much more quickly in the event of another incident? \p Pat McFadden: That is a good and important question. As I said, resilience has to be for all, not just for some. This is taken very seriously at the National Situation Centre. As data gets better—as, for example, energy companies get a better map of their vulnerable customers—we are getting to a better place when it comes to knowing exactly where the Government should direct their effort when an emergency hits. It is a really important part of community solidarity that people of all income groups know that the Government are there for them when an emergency hits. \p Adrian Ramsay: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm that climate-related emergencies are a core part of this resilience strategy? Climate breakdown has the potential to threaten our core infrastructure and poses risks to our core support systems, such as food and water, and the Climate Change Committee says that we are woefully ill-prepared for climate-related changes, so does he agree that the issue should be not a political football? Instead, it should be central to the Government’s resilience plans for protecting our citizens. \p Pat McFadden: I welcome that question. If the hon. Gentleman wants a full list of what is on the risk register, it is a public document, so he can look at that. I referred several times in my statement to energy security. To get the energy security that we need, we will have to invest in a lot of new kit and equipment around the country. It is really important that we are allowed to build that without people objecting to it at every turn. \p John Slinger: I have called for a responsibility revolution in which all businesses, organisations and individuals play their part in the national interest. I have seen that in my constituency on a visit to the National Gas station, which is a part of the critical infrastructure, and when talking to the Wolston and Brandon flood action group. Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps the Government are taking to provide better information to the public so that they can play their part in making our country more resilient? \p Pat McFadden: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This issue involves the public understanding the risks, and I think we should make this conversation normal. That is why it is right that we do the second emergency test of the system. We have used it a few times in live scenarios, in two storms that posed a real risk to life during last winter and in one or two more localised situations. The public are becoming more aware, but we will continue to make more information available so that people have a greater awareness of these situations and what they might be able to do to increase their own resilience. \p Gavin Williamson: It is vital that we exclude equipment from companies covered by the national intelligence law of China from being used in surveillance equipment on sensitive Government sites. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the progress made in doing that? \p Pat McFadden: As the decision maker for the National Security and Investment Act 2021, I deal with these issues every day. They involve the protection of our vital infrastructure and defences, the promotion of our economic wellbeing and ensuring that this country is a good home for inward investment. \p Rachael Maskell: Climate change is very real for us all, so building a resilience strategy is absolutely crucial. In a city that floods so regularly, it is drought that we are most concerned about, not least with the hosepipe ban being introduced this Friday. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that mayoral authorities introduce Living With Water plans so that we can balance flooding and drought and ensure that we have the correct supplies of water throughout the year? \p Pat McFadden: It is really important that we have more investment in our water infrastructure. This country has not built a reservoir for many, many years, but the new investment plans reached with the water companies since the election will begin to change that picture and improve the deep strength of our energy and water infrastructure, which I referred to in my statement. \p Joshua Reynolds: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke about the cyber-attacks on household names. The Business and Trade Committee heard evidence this morning from the chair of Marks & Spencer, who said that more of a two-way dialogue is needed with UK officials in which they are effectively given the offer to join and be seen as one of the team when these attacks occur. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirm how the action plan he has announced today will help with those kinds of requests from businesses? \p Pat McFadden: I have had a number of conversations with representatives of Marks & Spencer since the attack a few months ago, and I am appearing before the Business and Trade Sub-Committee tomorrow to discuss economic security. It is really important not just that the companies learn from the attacks, but that the Government constantly learn from attacks on vital systems in much-loved and cherished British companies such as M&S. \p Johanna Baxter: During the covid pandemic, I was a trade union official representing 200,000 local government workers across Scotland. I saw at first hand their extraordinary dedication to our public services, but I also saw when they were let down by a lack of co-operation and co-ordination between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Will my right hon. Friend outline how the resilience action plan will encourage greater co-operation between Governments across our devolved nations? \p Pat McFadden: When there is an emergency, there should be no place for performative politics from anyone. My experience over the past year has been that co-operation on these issues has been good. This is an arena in which we should be less partisan—perhaps that should be the case in other parts of our national life too—because in the end, the public who send us to this place want to know that help is there, no matter the colour or level of Government. That should be the spirit in which we approach emergency preparedness and resilience. \p Christine Jardine: I welcome the Minister’s statement, as well as the fact that there will be more information, not just mobile phone alerts, because those alerts do not work evenly, even in urban areas such as my constituency—there is often some delay with some phones. One of the questions that has arisen from the tragedy in Texas is whether mobile phone alerts are enough. People may not be near a phone, or they may be in a remote area, so have the Government given any thought to more old-fashioned ways—perhaps sirens, or some other way—of alerting the public when there is an emergency? \p Pat McFadden: The mobile phone alert system is a significant addition to our armoury as the coverage gets better. Not everyone uses mobile phones, but a very high percentage of the population does. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that other media can be used, and obviously we keep these things under constant consideration. \p Robin Swann: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has announced the opening of a dedicated resilience academy in North Yorkshire, which will train 4,000 private and public sector people per year. Can he give me an update on when that academy will be in place, and a surety that it will cover the entirety of the United Kingdom? He spoke earlier about the involvement of the UK Government with devolved regions, so it is critical their representatives are covered by that academy as well. \p Pat McFadden: There has been a facility in North Yorkshire for some time, but I opened it as the UK Resilience Academy a few months ago. It is in place, and the plan is to train 4,000 people every year, including first responders and sometimes people from the private sector. I hope that that training benefits people from right across the UK. \p Lincoln Jopp: The first line of defence in national resilience is us, the citizenry. The Health Secretary and the Education Secretary wrote recently lamenting the absence of much-needed grit among many of our young people. Now that that risk has been identified at the highest level of Government, does it appear on the risk register? \p Pat McFadden: We talk about the whole-society approach, because we understand that the public—us, as the hon. Gentleman says—have to be part of it. Government has its role to play, but it will not do everything; the public have a really important role to play in resilience. \p Sarah Dyke: Somerset is so often at the forefront of climate change. Recently, Somerset Rivers Authority set up a community flood action fund to provide small grants for small-scale works to reduce flooding in Somerset. These local, community-led interventions can make all the difference on the ground, but funds are limited, so how will the new resilience action plan future-proof local communities against climate-related risk, and how will it work to support local community interventions such as the SRA’s community flood action fund? \p Pat McFadden: Those community initiatives sound excellent. As I said in my statement, the Government have set aside some £4 billion for investment in flood defences over the coming years. We have all seen how things have changed over the past 10 or 20 years, and it is critical that we put in place the protections that communities need. \p Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister very much for his answers and his statement this afternoon. The recent cyber-attack on M&S and others has shown the devastation that can be wrought by the might of a keyboard. With trusts in Northern Ireland using Encompass and those in England using the integrated care system, what plans do the Government and the Minister have to ensure we have the capacity to be informed and to treat patients should an NHS attack or shutdown take place? \p Pat McFadden: I congratulate the hon. Member on his wonderful tartan tie, which has caught my eye today—he is the best-dressed man in the House. He is absolutely right about attacks on the health system. It is frankly outrageous that people out there would seek to disable parts of the NHS as a means of extortion, and it is really important that we do everything we can to defend the NHS and stop patients from being subject to delays in their treatment because of these outrageous attacks. \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement this afternoon. \p Heidi Alexander: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on how we are reconnecting Britain.

Today, I am announcing one of the most transformative investments in our transport network for a generation. We are greenlighting over 50 rail and road projects, touching every corner of the country, from more rail capacity in Oxford and better roads in Newcastle to new stations in Devon. This is what delivering on our plan for change looks like. We said we would raise living standards, so today’s announcement is about taking the brakes off growth, supporting 42,000 new jobs and slashing journey times. We said we would build 1.5 million new homes, so we are directly supporting the construction of 39,000 new properties, showing how transport can lift up communities and improve lives. We said that we would accelerate to net zero, so not only will we make our roads safer and less congested and continue the transition to electric vehicles in a sensible way; we will get more people on public transport, backing our railways with new links and more electrified track. More jobs, new housing and better journeys are the people’s priorities, and they are my priorities too.

None of this was inevitable. We are here because this Government are restoring stability to our finances and honesty to our politics. Thanks to the 10-year infrastructure strategy, we are committing at least £725 billion for infrastructure over the next decade, restoring confidence, driving growth and transforming how projects are delivered. Through phase 2 of the spending review, £92 billion will be spent on getting Britain moving. We have already confirmed where some of that money is going, including billions of pounds for upgrades on the trans-Pennine route, which is the backbone of our northern cities; a commitment to build the East West railway line to Cambridge; the biggest ever investment in local transport across the midlands and the north; and over £2 billion to enable Transport for London to continue with the purchase of new Piccadilly, Bakerloo and Docklands Light Railway trains. As the Chancellor said last month, we will also be confirming plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail soon.

Today, though, I can provide more detail on how we will use our wider spending review settlement. Let me start with our main highways. It should come as no surprise when I say that the strategic road network is one of our most important national assets. Carrying one third of all traffic and two thirds of our freight and generating £400 billion for our economy, those essential arteries sustain our businesses, our trade, and our very way of life. However, with much of the network built in the ’70s and ’80s, not only are many routes in need of renewal; there are pinch points where nothing short of new infrastructure will do.

As such, after careful consideration, I can announce that we will fund five more strategic road enhancement projects. That starts with linking up the M54 and the M6 and expanding capacity on the A38, which means better links for thousands of workers in the midlands and supports over 15,000 new homes across Derby. We will also start work on a continuous dual carriageway on the A66 across the Pennines, which will strengthen  road safety, cut journey times by 12 minutes and get more people to the region’s stunning national parks. We have set aside funding for the A46 Newark bypass scheme and the Simister Island interchange in Greater Manchester, with both schemes now awaiting the outcome of the live planning process.

Some 97% of trips directly depend on our road network. Whether it is cycling, buses, walking or cars—you name it, our roads carry it. That is why we are investing record funding, with enough to fill an extra 7 million potholes this year, and why we extended the temporary cut in fuel duty at the last Budget. This Government will always be on the side of the British people, who depend on our roads day in, day out.

Today we are going even further. I have approved full business cases on the Middlewich eastern bypass and the A382 from Drumbridges to Newton Abbot, meaning that they can now enter construction. I can also announce that we have secured funding to continue to take forward 28 schemes, from Somerset to Skipton and from Newcastle to North Hykeham. I have spoken about the dozens of schemes that will transform road journeys across the country. The decisions we have made prioritise those essential trips to work, to the shops and to see loved ones, and keep our vital freight sector moving.

Let me turn to the projects that will deliver more reliable journeys for passengers on our railways. We know that rail investment outside London is well overdue. The spending review ramped up funding for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, for new stations and capacity improvements in Wales and for East West Rail. The new midlands rail hub will see the region’s most ambitious rail improvement scheme to date. Thanks to Government funding, huge numbers of additional trains and 20 million extra seats could be added to services in and out of Birmingham each year.

But it is not just about delivering big-ticket projects. I can today announce new rail stations at Wellington and Cullompton in the south-west, which will bring significant benefits to local communities. Following representations from Mayor David Skaith and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), I have also decided to fund the reopening of Haxby station on the York to Scarborough line. We will replace the aged signalling system on the Tyne and Wear metro, securing the benefits of that service for the next generation. I have listened carefully to Mayor Helen Godwin and my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) about the need to reopen the Portishead line, and today I can confirm that we will do just that, connecting 50,000 additional people to the rail network.

Make no mistake: these and other projects will not just improve the passenger experience; they are down payments on future economic growth, better connectivity, and the new jobs and homes that this Government have promised. I know that some hon. Members will have specific schemes in their constituencies that are at the early stages or have not been funded in this spending review period, or that were cancelled but not announced as such by the previous Government. Let me reassure colleagues that many are worthy projects, and we will keep them under review. The soon-to-be-published infrastructure pipeline will set out our longer-term outlook and give colleagues the transparency that for years they have sorely lacked.

It is important to set the context. We know that critical infrastructure projects were promised. We know that expectations were raised. Sadly, we know that there was no plan to pay for them. Indeed, schemes that formed part of the previous Government’s major road network programme, all of which were meant to be in construction by now, have not progressed as expected. Almost half are yet to reach the outline business case stage, despite being in the programme for six years. Years of dither and delay wasted everyone’s time and left communities in limbo. That, I must say, is the tragic legacy of the farcical Network North announcement made by the previous Prime Minister. It therefore falls to this Government to make the difficult but necessary choices about future transport projects. We have to level with the British public, provide much-needed certainty and govern with integrity.

Only those projects that are fully costed, affordable and deliver a return on taxpayers’ money will be given the green light under my watch. That means no more black holes, no more busted budgets, and no more promising the moon on a stick—those days are over. I have therefore taken the difficult decision on the strategic road network not to progress the A12 widening scheme. That and dualling the A66 were two of the most expensive strategic schemes on the table, and it was impossible to continue with both. We have also decided not to progress the A47 Wansford to Sutton scheme. We are already investing more than £500 million on improvements to the A47 corridor, with work to dual sections in Norfolk already under way, but it is just not feasible to support further investment at this time.

I understand that some communities will feel frustrated, but by taking this decision we are rebalancing funds towards those areas that for too long have not had the infrastructure investment they deserve. The north and midlands will now get a higher proportion of strategic road spend than we have seen in the past five years. I believe that is the right and fair thing to do.

Finally, the previous Government spent many years and a lot of money developing plans for large local schemes and major road network projects that were never going to be affordable and therefore never got off the ground. We cannot go on like that. Although I have today written to colleagues and councils about 28 schemes that we will fund, many others now need to be reviewed. My officials will work with councils on which schemes to prioritise, and I will update the House on next steps once those discussions have taken place.

We are making a once-in-a-generation commitment to get Britain moving. Better roads and new rail links will raise living standards, increase opportunity and deliver on our plan for change. Throughout, we will always put the British people first. That means being honest about the inevitable trade-offs, understanding that financial stability remains the bedrock of economic growth, and ensuring that we always deliver the best value for taxpayers’ money. I truly believe that talent exists across this country, yet poor connectivity is a drag on opportunity and places a ceiling on people’s aspiration. That changes now. We will reconnect Britain, and we will deliver the world-class transport infrastructure that this country needs. That is my mission. I commend this statement to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I remind the Transport Secretary that it was always open to her to ask for more time for her statement. There is a 10-minute limit—so if the shadow Secretary of State would like more time, he too will get it. \p Gareth Bacon: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. Make no mistake: infrastructure is the connective tissue that binds our economy together. Our railways and strategic roads are the veins and arteries of our economy, connecting businesses up and down the country. That is why these announcements are to be welcomed, just as they were when they were previously announced by the last Conservative Government. For example, the M54 to M6 link road and the Portishead branch line were both announced and granted permission under the last Conservative Government. The new stations at Wellington and Cullompton and the midlands rail hub were all approved under the previous Conservative Government. The development consent order for the A66 northern trans-Pennine project was signed in March last year under the last Conservative Government. [Interruption.]

The Secretary of State calls from a sedentary position, “Where was the money?” As she well knows, that was in the last spending period, and the forthcoming spending review was always going to be after the general election. I could go on and on, because every single scheme announced by the Government today is the result of the work of the previous Conservative Government. I therefore cannot muster the same enthusiasm as her when it comes to today’s announcement.

The truth, whether they know it or not, is that the Secretary of State and her Ministers have been sent to this House today to stage a distraction, because in recent weeks we have seen the economic credibility and political unity of this Government implode. We have seen the Chancellor, who promised to maintain an “iron grip” on the public finances, forced to contend with unfunded U-turn after unfunded U-turn, all because the Prime Minister has lost control of their Back Benchers. We know what it means: more taxes for families and for businesses—the Chancellor has admitted it herself.

We also know the impact that this will have on the economy. In the last few months the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England and the OECD have all downgraded the UK’s growth forecasts—by as much as half, in the case of the OBR—so I am afraid that the Government are kidding themselves if they believe that reannouncing transport infrastructure projects that are already in the pipeline will revive an economy that is faltering after a disastrous first year in office. With the tax burden reaching an historic high, inflation almost double the Bank of England’s target and inactivity rising because the Government are seemingly incapable of implementing any kind of meaningful welfare reform, far from fixing the foundations, they are actively undermining them.

Quite aside from the fact that these reannouncements on their own will not revive our faltering economy, no deadline has been set for the completion of the projects, and in the light of that I must question whether the  funding for them is as secure as the right hon. Lady claims. Given that the OBR is expected to downgrade growth and productivity forecasts—not to mention Labour’s U-turns—we know that the Government have created a black hole of billions of pounds in the public finances, so I must ask the right hon. Lady how confident she is that funds will not be cut from these projects to fill the Chancellor’s economic black hole. Does she recognise that these projects alone will not revive an economy that is faltering under the Government’s economic mismanagement, and will she give a timeframe for them not just to be started, but to be completed?

What we have seen in recent weeks is the following: a Prime Minister whose unpopularity with the public is apparently exceeded only by his unpopularity with his own Back Benchers and who is now clearly at their mercy; a Chancellor who is wilting under the strain; and a Government with no new ideas, out of steam after only one year in office and forced to rely on ideas thought up by other people. It is no surprise that Ministers would like to speak about anything other than their own record in office, but Britain deserves better than this. \p Heidi Alexander: Sometimes I wonder what alternative reality the hon. Gentleman is living in. Network North may have promised everything to everyone, but not a penny of it was funded, and promising local areas schemes that the Conservatives knew would never materialise was no way to run a Government and no way to run a country. This Government are now providing certainty to those areas, giving the green light to important road and rail schemes and being honest about what we cannot afford.

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman caught what was said by the former Rail Minister Huw Merriman to the Transport Committee last week, but he had this to say about the record of the last Government:

“A lot of promises were made to MPs and others as to the ambition, but it did not match the amount that was actually being set down. By the time I came into post I ended up with a list that was much longer than could be funded.”

I rest my case.

The hon. Gentleman talked of nothing being new. Let me give him some examples of new projects that we are announcing today. We are upgrading the Tyne and Wear metro, replacing a signalling system that dates back to the 1970s and enabling the extension of the metro to Washington. We are providing new railway stations: Wellington and Cullompton in Devon, Portishead and Pill with connections to Bristol, and Haxby in North Yorkshire, which will connect tens of thousands of people to the rail network. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me which Conservative Transport Secretary committed funds to those schemes? He cannot, because none of them did.

Let me also give one of the new roads as an example: the Middlewich bypass in Cheshire. The previous Government rejected the business case for that scheme, but this Government are funding it. New infrastructure, new railway stations and new roads connecting every part of our country—that is the difference that a Labour Government make. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Ruth Cadbury: I welcome the statement, and I am sure that the Roads Minister will ensure that the various road projects deliver for local residents walking along and across the new junctions, and benefit them as much as they benefit drivers. The strategic road network projects are clearly important to dealing with congestion, but can I assume that each one has been subject to robust appraisal and business case development, and may I ask when we will see the equivalent work being done to address the chronic capacity crisis on the west coast main line? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that the schemes that are going ahead have been subject to a very robust business case appraisal. We believe that they offer the taxpayer value for money, and can unlock the connectivity that is so critical to driving economic growth across the country. My hon. Friend also asked—I think I understood her question correctly—about capacity on the west coast main line. We are aware of capacity constraints between Birmingham and Manchester, which are predicted to last into the next decade, and although we have made it clear that we will not reverse the decision to cancel phase 2 of HS2, we are reviewing options for addressing those capacity issues in the future. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Gideon Amos: People around the country have been plagued and let down by a transport system that was completely neglected by the last Conservative Government. The problems have ranged from potholes to cancelled bus services, along with entirely fictional budgets for rail and other transport projects.

Given that a safe, reliable transport system is vital to economic growth, this capital investment is of course welcome news. We are pleased to see the Government answering the calls of Liberal Democrats and other campaigners for vital upgrades such as new rail investment and improvements on the northern trans-Pennine route. Given the hard-fought campaign by local people in my constituency, I particularly welcome the confirmation of new stations at Wellington—first proposed in the House by my predecessor Jeremy Browne—and Cullompton. I cannot go quite as far as the Secretary of State in agreeing to relocate Wellington in Devon—it remains in Somerset—but both those rail projects are long overdue, and I thank the Secretary of State for engaging with not just me but my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) and others on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race), who I see is present, on the vital importance of those stations to the regional economy. The long overdue funding for the west midlands rail hub is also welcome.

Let me now turn to the road infrastructure projects. Many of the schemes announced today have been sought for many years. We are pleased to see investment in the A66, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has consistently campaigned, as well as investment in infrastructure in Manchester, Derby and Nottingham. However, we still need clarity on exactly how the funds for these projects will be spent. After years of delays, broken promises  and mismanagement—not least on HS2—public confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver major infrastructure is understandably low.

Given the effects of inflation during the 12-month delay of the Wellington and Cullompton stations project, among others, can the Secretary of State confirm that that project will be fully funded and completed in the two years that it will take to construct the stations? When will the Government finally publish detailed plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail? Can the Government give the country a firm assurance that all these projects will be delivered on time and on budget, in a cost-effective manner? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do everything in my power to ensure that future transport projects are delivered on time and on budget. He asked about Northern Powerhouse Rail. As I said in my statement, we will provide further details about that in the coming weeks. He was right to mention the two new stations, Wellington in—forgive me—Somerset and Cullompton, which, being located between Exeter and Taunton, will provide vital new connections for those regional centres, supporting economic growth and planned housing in the area. As the hon. Gentleman has put the case to me directly before, I know that both towns have significant expansion plans, so those stations will be critical to giving local people access to jobs at major employment centres such as the one in Exeter. \p Laurence Turner: I welcome the statement, and thank the Transport Secretary for all the positive engagement that she and other Ministers have had with the midlands rail project. At the heart of those works is the upgrade of Kings Norton station in my constituency, which is critically important for the cross-city line, and is also the birthplace of Thomas the Tank Engine. The Secretary of State will understand that we, as local MPs, are pressing for that next level of detail, so will she help to keep up the head of steam around this project, and leave commuters in my constituency feeling chuffed to bits? \p Heidi Alexander: I cannot possibly compete with those railway puns, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s constituents have such a strong advocate for public transport and investment in the rail network. He is right to say that the midlands rail hub can have transformative impacts, and I thank him for all that he has done in championing the scheme over the months. He has been such a positive Member of this House. \p Rebecca Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, but I am really disappointed that the TavyRail scheme has received a red light. We have heard quite a lot about the investment in Devon and Somerset. The Government are delivering a huge amount of investment in Plymouth, which is welcome, but without a rail link between Tavistock and Plymouth that can continue further into my constituency at Ivybridge, I struggle to see how the investment in defence and housing will be fulfilled. Given that the Secretary of State is committing at least £725 billion for  infrastructure over the next decade, I would be interested to know why she could not find £1.5 million to fund the business case for TavyRail. \p Heidi Alexander: We are keeping a number of schemes under review, and we will set out a pipeline of future infrastructure schemes that we believe are worthy, but which have not been funded in this spending review. I am happy to receive more detail about the particular scheme that the hon. Lady raises. \p Leigh Ingham: The announcement of upgrades to the northbound M54-M6 junction is hugely welcome. It will make getting to Stafford from Telford much easier, and have a really positive impact on our economic development. When does the Secretary of State anticipate that that work will start, so that my county can keep benefiting from this Government? \p Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. We will set out the timetable for the delivery of these schemes as we produce the next road investment strategy—RIS3—which we will have done by the end of March next year. \p Edward Leigh: For 30 long and weary years, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and I have campaigned for a through-train from Grimsby, which would stop at Market Rasen and end up in London. We have been made numerous promises by Network Rail, which is now saying that the platform is too short, that a bridge needs to be built, and that it will cost £25 million—the usual negativity. The Secretary of State is a feisty Minister. I promise her that if she gets us our train, I will campaign for it to be renamed the “Heidi Alexander, Heroine of Lincolnshire”. \p Heidi Alexander: I feel that I am making progress, because the last time the right hon. Gentleman asked me a question, I believe he suggested that I name a train after Margaret Thatcher. I politely declined. He will get everywhere with flattery. Of course, the digital signalling on the east coast main line will have a positive impact on services, but I am afraid I cannot make a commitment on the particular service that he wants at this time. \p Rachel Hopkins: Transport is the backbone of our economy, so the record £92 billion investment in rail and road projects is hugely welcome. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need more people on public transport. Although Luton station will finally see works start on its much-needed lifts, we need to tackle the poor state of the station in order to encourage more people to use the railway. Will the Secretary of State or one of her Ministers meet me to discuss how we can do so? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a fair point: stations need to be welcoming and attractive places. I am pleased that the accessibility improvements are happening at Luton station, and I would be very happy to meet her, as she requests. \p Wendy Morton: However the Secretary of State dresses this up, her Labour Government, aided by Mayor Parker, are still leaving communities such as Aldridge behind by pushing our train station project into the sidings. Given her  announcement—or reannouncement—of the midlands rail hub, can she confirm whether she is committed to fully funding the whole project, including all the chords, and when will it be delivered ? \p Heidi Alexander: We will set out more detail on the midlands rail hub in due course. I simply observe that when the right hon. Lady was a Rail Minister, she was unfortunately unable to deliver the station for which she now advocates. \p Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement, and welcome the investments in transport. Let me take her back to the proposed Liverpool-Manchester railway line, because it is important that this delivers for my constituents in Widnes and Halewood. In her discussions with the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and other leaders in the area, will she bear in mind that one of the proposals is for a Liverpool Gateway station? Ditton in my constituency, which is the site of an oil station and has good links to both the west coast main line and the freight line, is ideally placed. Will she bear that in mind in any future discussions that she has with the Liverpool city region? \p Heidi Alexander: Let me assure my hon. Friend that I am in frequent discussions with the Mayor for the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, as well as the Mayor for Greater Manchester. I am aware of the proposed Liverpool Gateway station in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I hope to be able to say more on Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks. \p Tim Farron: A few weeks ago I was in Eamont Bridge and met a retired police officer, who shared with me his experiences of visiting road traffic accidents and, indeed, of having to break the news of the death of loved ones to countless people over his career. He begged me to carry on campaigning for the upgrade to the A66. On his behalf, and on behalf of the thousands of people who are part of the campaign to see that upgrade happen, I thank the Secretary of State for committing the money to do that today. However, we have wasted a year while this has been under deliberation. Will she now give an updated timescale, so that we can get on with the work as soon as possible in order to keep my constituents safe and to boost the economy of the north of England? \p Heidi Alexander: As I said in response to a previous question, we will set out the delivery timetable for all the schemes that we are announcing today when we produce the next roads investment strategy. We will produce a draft of that later this year, and the final version will be published by March. \p Navendu Mishra: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, and I particularly thank her for the announcement just a few days ago of £2.5 billion for the public transport network in Greater Manchester. That is very welcome news. I have been campaigning for a long time for the extension of Manchester’s Metrolink tram network into my constituency, and I thank the Secretary of State and the Chancellor for funding the extension to Stockport town centre.

I have one ask. Reddish South train station in my constituency is one of the quietest railway stations in the UK, with just one service per week. The Friends of Reddish South Station group are very active, and I was with them on Sunday. Will the Secretary of State restore proper passenger services at Reddish South train station? \p Heidi Alexander: I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend welcomes the record investment in city regions that the Chancellor announced shortly before the spending review. It is worth nearly £16 billion across the country, and the extension of the tram network in Greater Manchester is a key part of that funding. I am aware of the campaign for a full service to Reddish South, and I encourage my hon. Friend to keep working with the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester to build the case for it. \p Jeremy Wright: The Secretary of State has made reference to those areas of the country that wanted transport infrastructure projects and have not got them. May I ask her to spare a thought for those places that have got transport infrastructure projects that they do not want? She knows that High Speed 2 passes through my constituency but delivers no benefit to the people I represent. In future rounds of consideration for rail and road projects, will she consider giving priority to those places that are suffering in that way, but which have a real need for other types of transport infrastructure that perhaps they deserve as compensation? \p Heidi Alexander: With respect to HS2, one of the benefits is that when the high-speed trains move on to new lines, we will be able to improve other regional services on the existing line. Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman may feel that the HS2 line has limited value to his constituents at the moment, getting it up and running will open up other options for rail travel moving forward. \p Amanda Hack: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and for the significant investment in transport across the UK. The confirmation of funding for the A511 corridor in the east midlands is extremely welcome. For far too long, communities such as mine have been overlooked by the previous Government for infrastructure investment where we have had lots of housing growth. This funding marks a turning point, accelerating opportunity and connecting our community. Can the Secretary of State assure me that every part of my constituency will see and feel the full economic benefits of this vital investment? \p Heidi Alexander: Our local roads have a key role to play in driving growth across the UK and across the area my hon. Friend represents. They will allow people to access new opportunities and a higher quality of life wherever they choose. I am pleased to confirm that the scheme in her constituency is one of 28 that the Government have secured funding for and will be going ahead. \p Steve Darling: Just one large storm could sever the rail network at Dawlish, so will the Secretary of State commit to stage 5 of Network Rail’s resilience programme? In my constituency there is a  need for a railway station at Edginswell, which would equally unlock regeneration. I would welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. \p Heidi Alexander: We have had to prioritise our funding on the schemes that will make the greatest difference for passengers and economic growth as soon as possible. Having already invested in securing the cliffs and making the coastline more resilient in the south-west, the final phase of work will be kept under review as part of our pipeline of future funding. This will be determined by the output of the cliff monitoring and drainage works that we are continuing to fund. \p Olivia Bailey: I congratulate the Secretary of State on an ambitious but fully funded and deliverable plan to reconnect Britain. I welcome the commitment made to me by the Roads Minister last week that National Highways will review the safety of the dangerous slip roads at East Ilsley and Beedon on the A34, following my campaign. Does the Secretary of State agree that road safety must be at the heart of our plans for Britain’s roads? \p Heidi Alexander: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, which is why, for the first time in years, this Government will be producing a new road safety strategy. I look forward to talking more with her and other colleagues about its contents. \p Andrew Murrison: The Secretary of State is a Wiltshire MP, so she will be very familiar with the town of Westbury, which has waited for decades for its bypass. Will she assure me that she is actively looking at proposals to bypass Westbury to the west of the town, including Yarnbrook, and does she agree that the north-south strategic study provides an opportunity to get the bypass that Westbury so desperately needs? \p Heidi Alexander: I will need to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the Westbury scheme. I will make sure that I look into the details of it and I will come back to him. \p Catherine Fookes: I welcome the ramped up spending that the Secretary of State has announced today and the £445 million for Wales that was promised at the spending review. The new station at Magor and Undy could take cars off the M4 and open doors for local people who do not have a car and currently cannot get a job because of a lack of transport. Does she agree that the Magor and Undy walkway station would be an excellent candidate for starting the five Burns stations, given the track and infrastructure that already exist at Magor and Undy? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend has been a fearsome advocate for the station at Magor and Undy. She will know that we have allocated £445 million over the next 10 years to right the historic wrongs of rail investment in Wales. I am looking forward to working with the Wales Rail Board to determine appropriate priorities and ensure that the communities she represents in Wales get the infrastructure they need. \p Ann Davies: Spiralling costs mean that Wales is owed at least £4 billion from HS2, yet, as the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) said, we are set to receive just £445 million over a 10-year period, which will be used for five stations, with nothing west of Cardiff. St Clears in my constituency has been promised a station for years. Can the Secretary of State say if there will be any additional money for this vital project, or are we expected to be grateful for the continued underfunding of Welsh railways? \p Heidi Alexander: We are seeing a step change in the amount of funding that this Government are putting into the Welsh rail network. The £445 million will fund development projects as well as the delivery of some new infrastructure, and that is in south Wales and also in north Wales. I would be happy to speak further to the hon. Member about the scheme in her constituency that she has mentioned. \p Imran Hussain: Much of what is in today’s statement is of course welcome, but for places such as Bradford that have been left behind for a generation, we need to go much further. So I again make the case for a connection for Bradford to the trans-Pennine route as part of Northern Powerhouse Rail. This, along with a new rail station and a bus station, will unlock £4.5 billion in economic output, which is growth not just for Bradford, but for the whole region. While I appreciate that the Secretary of State is saying the decision on Northern Powerhouse Rail will be announced in due course, Bradford cannot wait for that growth. Can she give a specific time when that will be announced, and can she confirm that Bradford will be included as part of the trans-Pennine route? \p Heidi Alexander: I am very aware of the case that my hon. Friend and the leader of Bradford council have put forward for a new station. As he notes, we will be setting out our plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail in the coming weeks. \p Mark Francois: The largest road programme in the UK is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend. It is now scheduled to cost about £10 billion, and the Government say that 90% or more of that will be funded from the private sector. I asked the Secretary of State last month on the Floor of the House which institutions exactly are going to finance that, and she replied, in essence, “I’ll get back to you.” So can I ask her again, because the longer the Government refuse to answer this question, the more sceptical people in Essex and Kent will become about whether that much-needed, vital strategic link is ever going to get built at all? \p Heidi Alexander: One of the first things I did when I came into this post was to agree with the Treasury that we would explore private finance options for the lower Thames crossing. We are working at the moment on securing a suitable private sector partner to finance the scheme. However, I think the right hon. Member has a bit of a brass neck, if I am honest. His Government sat on a planning application for years and years. This Government, within a year of coming into office, had granted planning consent and had decided to take forward the scheme with private finance, because we  know how critical that crossing will be for people living in Kent and Essex, and also for the freight and logistics companies that will use it. \p Steve Race: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement, and I welcome the long-overdue and funded commitment to the new Cullompton train station, which will benefit Exeter. I commend the activists across the area for their successful campaign, and I also welcome the work done by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Does the Secretary of State agree with me that continuing to invest in public transport infrastructure and accessibility at stations such as Exeter St Thomas will help cities such as Exeter to grow their economies sustainably, delivering jobs and better living standards for everyone in those cities? \p Heidi Alexander: I agree that accessibility at railway stations is critical. Obviously, it is key for disabled members of our community, but it is also vital for young parents travelling with prams and buggies, or people going on holiday with heavy suitcases. My hon. Friend has been a real champion for a new lift at Exeter St Thomas station, and while it is not currently on the list of 50 feasibility schemes that we are doing, I am sure he will continue to make the case to me for its worth. \p Gavin Williamson: The M54-M6 link road in my constituency is something that my constituents and I have long campaigned for, because many residents in the villages of Featherstone, Hilton and Shareshill are currently affected by traffic trying to link on to the M6, which has an impact on people’s lives. Can the Secretary of State assure us that everything will be done to ensure that the scheme moves quickly and is built as swiftly as possible? \p Heidi Alexander: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I want to see spades in the ground as soon as possible, so that people can benefit from that vital new piece of road infrastructure. \p Jas Athwal: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her pragmatic approach to government, rather than the previous “pie in the sky” approach. It would be remiss of me not to mention Broadmead Road bridge in Redbridge, which has been closed to vehicle traffic since 2023. After 14 years of austerity, Redbridge council does not have the funds to reopen it, and I am sure she knows from her previous role that the Mayor of London also does not have any money. Given that the bridge affects five constituencies, runs over the Central line and connects to the M11, the A406 and the M25, can she please include its restoration in her plans to upgrade roads and railways across the country? \p Heidi Alexander: I had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) recently, who made a similar case about Broadmead Road bridge. In the spending review, we secured funding to set up a structures fund to ensure that the Government can make money available to local authorities with failing assets where the cost of the asset is so great that it would be prohibitive for the local authority to address  it on its own. We will be issuing a call for evidence to ask for feedback on how best to structure that fund, and I hope to be able to say more about its design before the end of the year. \p Cameron Thomas: Improved rail links are vital to support the planned developments around Ashchurch and Northway in my constituency, including a garden community and an outlet centre that opens next week. Current services to Ashchurch for Tewkesbury station are limited and unreliable, with the nearest arterial road routinely gridlocked. I welcome the funding for the midlands rail hub, but my constituents will be eager to learn whether funding for improvements at Ashchurch for Tewkesbury will be incorporated in that funding. \p Heidi Alexander: If I may, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the details he requests. \p Christopher Bloore: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and, more importantly, for her commitment to the midlands rail hub. That is not just warm words and empty promises, but a breakthrough moment for the west midlands, especially towns such as Redditch. The scheme will deliver extra services and millions more train seats a year for my businesses and constituents. Would she therefore like to visit Redditch to see what that improvement will mean for our town and, perhaps, to get the spades in the ground as quickly as possible to deliver the project? \p Heidi Alexander: I would be delighted to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for Redditch. I know what a transformative project the midlands rail hub could be for his constituents by improving capacity into Moor Street station in Birmingham. I look forward to discussing it more when I visit. \p Nusrat Ghani: Obviously, the Secretary of State has an open invitation to visit Crowborough and Wadhurst stations. \p Martin Vickers: I will follow on from the Secretary of State’s reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) about the service between Grimsby, Cleethorpes and King’s Cross. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned digital signalling on the east coast main line, which will improve capacity, but five trains a day already run between King’s Cross and Lincoln. All that we are asking is for them to continue the last 40 miles through Market Rasen and Grimsby to Cleethorpes. There would be minimal expenditure apart from, I think, a safer crossing at Market Rasen station, and it would help the economic growth of the north Lincolnshire area. \p Heidi Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case. As I said, we prioritised the schemes that we have announced today on the basis of the ones that will deliver the greatest improvement to passengers most quickly. I know that there will be other schemes worthy of investment, but that is why we have not announced the particular service and scheme that he wants today. \p Rachael Maskell: In the year of the 200th anniversary of the railways, my rail city of York will greatly welcome the announcement about Haxby station. The line in question will address congestion issues and provide economic opportunity in my constituency. The trains will arrive at York station, but the rear of that station is not yet accessible. Will the Secretary of State ensure that as we develop our network, we have real access for all disabled people and others, so that we can gain the benefits from these new announcements? \p Heidi Alexander: If my hon. Friend writes to me with further details of the access issues at the rear of York station, I will be happy to speak to the Rail Minister and relevant organisations to see whether there are improvements that we can make. I appreciate that we need accessible stations if everyone is to benefit. \p Sarah Dyke: Residents in Somerton and Langport are isolated from the railway line that runs right through the area. Some 50,000 residents could benefit from a new station, but hopes for that station took a massive hit when the Chancellor cancelled the restoring your railway fund. What steps will the Secretary of State take to introduce train links for communities such as Somerton and Langport? In the shorter term, will she commit to expanding integrated bus routes, so that my constituents can get to the nearest railway station? \p Heidi Alexander: We will publish an integrated national transport strategy later this year to address precisely the sort of issues that the hon. Member raises about the criticality of bus links to stations in the absence of a new station. My predecessor and the Chancellor took the decision to cancel the restoring your railway programme because it was unaffordable in its entirety, but where schemes offer good value for money and really transformative benefits for the local economy—such as the Wellington and Cullompton schemes, and the Portishead scheme that we have announced today—I hope that we have shown that we are prepared to look at them and take them forward. \p James Naish: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the announcements about the A46 bypass, given that the A46 goes through my constituency, and about the midlands rail hub that will connect Nottingham to Birmingham. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands, however, I must mention the electrification of the midland main line. I believe that the Department has received representations from more than 30 east midlands MPs, the mayor’s office and the APPG about the project. This feels like a missed opportunity. What steps are being taken to make sure that the project is not missed, but continues to be debated and discussed by the Department? \p Heidi Alexander: I believe that my hon. Friend and some of his east midlands colleagues are meeting the Rail Minister later this week to discuss the midland main line electrification phase 3. The costs of the scheme were substantial, and we had to prioritise other schemes that deliver more tangible benefits to passengers sooner. However, we will keep the electrification scheme under review as part of our pipeline of projects for future funding. \p Bernard Jenkin: How can I possibly welcome the Secretary of State’s statement when, by her own admission, she has cancelled the A12 widening scheme and said nothing about the dualling of the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey? How does she intend Braintree, Colchester and Tendring to deliver the massive new housing targets imposed by the Government with no new road or rail infrastructure at all? \p Heidi Alexander: The simple truth is that we inherited a series of commitments that could not be afforded, so we had to take the difficult decision not to progress some projects. National Highways will now work to bring those projects to a close. I will say that on the A12, if there are individual, small-scale interventions that could unlock or address particular problems, we would be happy to look at those. \p Jacob Collier: I welcome the improvements to the A38 and the midlands rail hub, which will mean 300 extra trains through Burton every week. The Secretary of State will know that I have been campaigning for the A50/A500 corridor, which is essential for local people and businesses; the Roads Minister will remember the time when she visited my constituency and got stuck in traffic on the A50. What progress might we hear on this vital corridor upgrade? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look carefully at the A50 scheme as part of our planning for the next road investment strategy. He will have heard me say that we plan to publish a draft of that later this year, and to have that finalised by the end of March. \p Jim Allister: We in Northern Ireland had a salutary experience recently when a major road project on our A5 was struck down by the High Court because of a failure to comply with net zero expectations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Given that the legislation is very similar in Great Britain, is the Secretary of State satisfied that all these new road projects will not also fall foul of the net zero campaign? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the environmental impacts of all road schemes are considered carefully before business cases are approved and planning approval is given. In fact, in many cases, schemes tackling congestion hotspots will deliver environmental benefits—in particular, air quality and noise benefits. I am not concerned about the possibility of what the hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am grateful to him for highlighting that case in Northern Ireland. \p Peter Swallow: When Heathrow airport sets out its growth plans, a key component of them will be the plans for improved access by public transport. Will the Secretary of State urge it to look at the southern rail link, which should run through my constituency specifically, of course? It could have huge benefits across the south-east and would connect us to the airport. \p Heidi Alexander: We expect any promoter of an expanded Heathrow to consider how people will get to and from the airport; neither my hon. Friend nor I want to see the M25 or M4 turned into Europe’s largest car  park. I expect any scheme promoter to ensure that ease of access by public transport is taken into account when putting together any proposals. \p Blake Stephenson: I welcome the commitment to deliver East West Rail. Sticking with the railways, will the Secretary of State provide assurance to my constituents that she is committed to delivering step-free access—in particular, at Harlington and Flitwick stations? On roads, junction 13 of the M1 is desperately in need of remodelling to cope with a growing population and to ease traffic flows. What assessment has been made of the benefits of remodelling that junction? \p Heidi Alexander: I would need to write to the hon. Gentleman with the details on junction 13 of the M1. I hear the case that he makes for improved accessibility at Harlington and Flitwick stations, and would be happy to correspond with him further on whether they are covered by the 50 feasibility studies that we are doing. We have funding available in this spending review to construct some of those schemes, and I would be happy to provide a written update on that. \p Andy McDonald: In my four years as shadow Transport Secretary, the issue of electrification was never far from the top of the agenda, and I very much welcome Secretary of State’s announcement around the trans-Pennine route upgrade. However, may I point out that the north of England is not confined to the conurbations in that immediate area? There is more to it than that. In 2015, the electrification taskforce established that the line from Northallerton through to Thornaby and Middlesbrough in my constituency, and indeed onwards to Redcar—the heart of Net Zero Teesside—was right at the top of the tier. When the infrastructure pipeline comes forward, I urge the Secretary of State to take into consideration the gross value added that the extension would bring, because Teesside and the Tees Valley are ready to make their contribution to growing this economy, and the extension would ensure that they could. \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. That case is why, even if we are not committing funding in this spending review to electrification projects, we will keep them under review as we move forward. We are also considering and developing our strategy on rail decarbonisation more broadly. Most of our existing arterial routes are now electrified. There is also rapidly evolving technology; there are bi-mode and even tri-mode trains now. We need to consider our strategy in the round. \p Caroline Voaden: I welcome the Minister’s statement, and it is good that Devon made it on to the map—just. Many on the Liberal Democrat Benches and others across the House travel from Paddington down to the far south-west, and we have spoken with your Department about the effects of the Old Oak Common works on that line. Can the Minister confirm that the Department is considering mitigations for the effects of the Old Oak Common development—namely, ensuring more capacity and reliability, potentially electrifying the main line to the west, and improving 4G connectivity on those trains? \p Nusrat Ghani: “Your Department”—anyone would assume that I was running Transport. I was a Minister in that Department once, but not any more. I call the Secretary of State. \p Heidi Alexander: In the past couple of weeks, we announced Project Reach, which will improve mobile connectivity in a number of tunnels and sidings, and some of those improvements will take place over the Great Western Railway network. On the works at Old Oak Common, the Rail Minister is very alive to the question of how we minimise disruption for users of the GWR service, both in the construction phase and once HS2 is in operation, and is looking in detail at that. Of course, when it is finally open, the station will offer a valuable interchange for GWR customers, who will be able to go to Birmingham without going into central London. \p Anna Gelderd: Boosting growth and prosperity across the country, and especially in rural and coastal areas, is vital. What is the Secretary of State delivering for Cornwall, to help towns and villages in my area, including Saltash, Liskeard and Polperro, particularly as we work to find a long-term, sustainable and fair solution to the issue of the Tamar crossings? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend was in contact with me directly a couple of days ago about mobile connectivity improvements on GWR that improve services in her constituency. I know that an integrated bus network in Cornwall is absolutely vital to her constituents, and through our Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, we want to give local leaders more powers to shape the bus networks that communities like hers need and deserve. \p Joe Robertson: As the Secretary of State knows, the biggest connectivity issue for the Isle of Wight is its ferry services. I welcome her engagement on that issue. Might she consider cross-Solent ferry services to be part of the UK’s road and rail network? The Isle of Wight’s roads and rail are connected to the rest of the UK only via entirely privatised, very expensive and completely unregulated ferry companies. \p Heidi Alexander: I understand the importance of a reliable and affordable ferry service. The Isle of Wight’s ferry services are obviously provided privately, and our road network, and our rail network especially, will increasingly be in public ownership in the future. While I cannot commit to doing what he asks, I can commit to working with the hon. Gentleman and his colleague on the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), to try to improve this situation for their residents. \p Dave Robertson: Today’s announcement is great news for people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages. To the north, we have improvements on the A38, making access to the University of Derby easier; to the west, we have improvements to the M4 and M6 link road, which will be great for access to the i54, and to Telford and Wales. To the south, we have the midlands rail hub, which will be excellent for the cross-city line. All we need is for Reform-controlled Staffordshire county council to the east to sort out Chetwynd bridge; then we will have the entire compass covered.

Turning to the south, the cross-city line is the busiest commuter line outside of London, but since covid, we have had just two trains an hour from Lichfield Trent Valley to Birmingham. The midlands rail hub will get us back up to four. Will the Secretary of State come to Lichfield to meet me—potentially on her way to Redditch—and ensure that we can deliver more trains on the cross-city line as quickly as possible? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is clearly at the heart of all the action today. Having accepted an invitation to visit Redditch, how can I refuse a visit to Lichfield? I would be happy to talk to him more about the challenges of and opportunities for midlands transport when I visit. \p David Chadwick: The Secretary of State said that she was reconnecting Britain, and then proceeded to mention Wales only once. These plans will not give us the boost that we need in Wales. We are the poorest nation in the UK. Investing in infrastructure delivers economic growth and boosts productivity—that is true—so why has she given up on Wales? Will we ever see the full electrification of the north and south main lines? \p Heidi Alexander: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this Government have not given up on Wales—in fact, it is the precise opposite. It is why, during the spending review, the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box and announced £445 million of investment into rail projects—righting the wrongs of that historic under-investment. \p Andrew Cooper: The fight for the Middlewich eastern bypass started more than 40 years ago, and after all these years of false starts, dashed hopes and frustrated residents, I could not be prouder that this Labour Government are finally delivering on that project. After 14 years of under-investment in areas such as mine, it is really encouraging to see the Government delivering the funding that is needed to make such a vital infrastructure project a reality. The recent reforms to the Treasury’s Green Book, championed by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), have clearly played a crucial role in enabling projects such as this to move forward, better reflecting the needs and potential of towns like Middlewich. How does my hon. Friend see the Middlewich eastern bypass, along with the 50 other road schemes that she has greenlit, contributing to the long term economic growth and supporting more balanced and inclusive development across all parts of the country? \p Heidi Alexander: I am really pleased to be able to announce today the green light for the Middlewich bypass. I know that that new 2.5 km of single carriageway bypass to the east of Middlewich will make a big difference to my hon. Friend’s constituency, unlocking swifter, easier journeys and more routes to employment and opportunities for his constituents for which he so powerfully advocates. \p Martin Wrigley: I thank the Secretary of State for greenlighting the work on the A382 into Newton Abbot. That will be a massive  improvement when it is completed. May I congratulate the successful teams at Teignbridge and at Devon county council, who have been working on the project for some while? However, I am disappointed to hear that Dawlish is not on the list and will be put back. Indeed, although I am pleased that the Government will be continuing to fund the monitoring of the cliffs, may I draw it to the Secretary of State’s attention that it was a single catastrophic shift, rather than a gradual increase of the situation, that caused the collapse of the cliff at Dawlish that shut the railway for eight weeks, causing approximately £1.2 billion of damage to the south-west economy? \p Heidi Alexander: As I said in response to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), we have already heavily invested in securing the cliffs and making the coastline more resilient in Dawlish. We are keeping that final phase of work under review, and it will be possible to determine the next course of action only once that further cliff monitoring and drainage works have taken place. None the less, I can assure him that we will keep it within the pipeline of schemes that we are considering for future investment. \p Josh Fenton-Glynn: The previous Government dodged vital infrastructure decisions for 14 years, so I am glad that this Government are stepping up with projects such as the east coast main line upgrade, which has been announced today, strengthening connections to Leeds and West Yorkshire. However, although connections to London are important, anyone crossing the Pennines from Leeds to Manchester via towns in my constituency will know that this route is in vital need of investment. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents that this will not be the last of the projects that she announces, and that the Calder Valley line upgrade is still very much on the table? \p Heidi Alexander: As I have said, there is a number of very worthy rail schemes which, although funding may not have been allocated during this spending review period, are important to the travelling public. My hon. Friend makes a strong case for the scheme that will benefit his constituents, and I can assure him that when we have any updates on future funding availability I will come back and update the House. \p Robin Swann: The Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure informed me this morning that her Department is working with the Department for Transport and the European Investment Bank on the recommendations in the all-island strategic rail review. One of those recommendations is the opening of the Antrim to Lisburn line, which includes the opening of three previously closed stations at Crumlin, Ballinderry, and Glenavy, with a new hall at the Belfast international airport. Can the Secretary of State provide any further update on what support the Government can provide or what engagement she has had with the Department of Infrastructure in Northern Ireland or the European Investment Bank on what will be a critical piece of investment in my constituency of South Antrim? \p Heidi Alexander: Although I have not personally had any direct engagement, it may be that the Rail Minister or my officials have, and so I would be happy to write back to the hon. Gentleman to update him on any collaboration that is taking place in this respect. \p Josh MacAlister: People across Cumbria will warmly welcome the decision made by the Secretary of State about the dualling of the Pennine section of the A66, which will benefit the whole county. However, I wonder whether she might also say something about another scheme that is not yet at the same level of development, which is the Cumbria coastal line, running from Carlisle through my constituency to Barrow and then on to Lancaster. Other Cumbrian colleagues and I had a very productive meeting with the Rail Minister last week, and I wondered whether the Secretary of State will help to push for the final business case to be invested in, so that we can make some progress on the upgrade to that all-important line? \p Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend has spoken to me directly about this in the past couple of days. I know that the Rail Minister found that meeting very helpful. I appreciate that there is some strategic crossover with Defence and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but I will be sure to stay in touch with my hon. Friend as the business case develops. \p Helen Morgan: The A483 that runs between Welshpool and Oswestry is a key economic artery for the Marches region, but like the rest of North Shropshire’s transport infrastructure, it has been seriously neglected over many years. That has left the crossroad at Llynclys in my constituency as one of the west midlands’ worst accident blackspots. Highways England has a great plan to redesign it and make it safer for all concerned. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see how we can progress that critical improvement? \p Heidi Alexander: I would be very happy to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for the Future of Roads to take that meeting as I suspect that she will be closer to some of the detail of the work that National Highways is doing. \p Connor Naismith: I welcome today’s announcements that will see improvements in the performance on the west coast main line, particularly as they come during the week where, in my constituency and in many others, we celebrated Crewe Day, which commemorates the anniversary almost 200 years ago when the first rail service passed through the now strategic rail hub of Crewe. But can the Secretary of State outline how this funding will be used to ensure that freight growth targets can be met on the west coast corridor, and tell us whether new routes, such as the midlands north-west rail link are being considered to support this ambition? \p Heidi Alexander: I shall write to my hon. Friend about the detail of the midlands north-west rail link. As we establish Great British Railways, we will be placing a duty on the new organisation, which will be the publicly owned organisation to bring together the management of track and train, to increase the amount of freight that we transport on the railways. We do need to get lorries off the road and move more goods on the rail network. It is a strategic objective for me and my Department to make sure that we are maximising the amount of freight that we can transport on the rail network, while also delivering excellent passenger services. \p Mark Ferguson: The Secretary of State and the Minister for the Future of Roads will be surprised that I am going to break the habit of a lifetime and not talk about the Gateshead flyover for a change. But I am very interested in the structures fund, and I look forward to engaging further with the Department on how we can deliver this vital infrastructure for Gateshead. Instead of the flyover, I want to talk about the delivery of the signalling system for the metro—slightly less exciting for some perhaps, but it is incredibly important. That comes on top of new trains and £1.85 billion of investment, including in a new metro line. Does the Secretary of State agree that investment in the north-east is being delivered because we have a Labour mayor in Kim McGuinness working with Labour MPs and a Labour Government? \p Heidi Alexander: I agree 100%. Mayor Kim McGuinness is a fearsome advocate for her region. The first day I met her, she managed to mention to me the Tyne bridge, Nexus signalling and extending the metro out to Washington all in about 30 seconds. I am really pleased that we are delivering these vital improvements to transport infrastructure for his constituents and the wider region. \p Jonathan Davies: I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the Minister for the Future of Roads for her generous engagement with me regarding the expansion of the A38 in Derby, which has been greenlit today. Many residents and businesses will welcome the expansion of the A38, which is a significant bottleneck. It also means we now have the opportunity to unlock economic growth around that stretch of road. However, some residents are rightly concerned about the impact of the road on established woodland and Markeaton Park. How much biodiversity net gain will be delivered through the project, and will it be used to drive improvements in public transport, walking and cycling? Finally, can she ensure that this development has no effect whatsoever on the UNESCO world heritage status of the Derwent valley? \p Heidi Alexander: I would expect all road schemes that we are announcing today to contribute to our public transport objectives and improve the walking and cycling environment. As I said in my statement, roads are used by everyone and for many different modes of transport. On my hon. Friend’s point about biodiversity net gain, I am assured that all schemes have gone through a very thorough environmental assessment. I will write to him on the other issue he raises. \p Caroline Nokes: I call Markus Campbell-Savours to ask the final question. \p Markus Campbell-Savours: Like many Cumbrians, I am delighted and relieved that the Government have agreed funding for the A66 trans-Pennine project. It never should have been in doubt, and it is clear to me that it would not have been were it not for the financial legacy of the previous Government. Ministers can now look forward to me lobbying for a new roundabout at Brigham and Broughton in west Cumbria—a project rejected by the previous Government. Can the Secretary of State set out what assessment she has made of the benefits to my constituents of the A66 trans-Pennine project? \p Heidi Alexander: Last but not least, Madam Deputy Speaker. The A66 is a vital scheme that will not only reduce journey times but improve safety, unlock the delivery of new homes in some locations and open up access to the region’s beautiful national parks. The work never stops in this job, so I note what my hon. Friend says about his campaign for a new roundabout, and I look forward to discussing that with him in the future. \p Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my 33 years in this House it has always been the practice that a statement of this nature would be made alongside a White Paper, which would be available in the Vote Office to Members as soon as the Secretary of State sits down. There is no White Paper in the Vote Office to explain the detail of the Government’s decision making. Is there anything you can do to elucidate from the Secretary of State whether a White Paper will be forthcoming and when that will be? \p Caroline Nokes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair, but I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comment. \p Gareth Thomas: Sir Wyn Williams has today released the first volume of his report into the Horizon scandal, which caused so much harm to so many innocent people. The fearless and diligent work of his inquiry has, I believe, won the trust and admiration of postmasters. The inquiry has asked penetrating questions of a large number of witnesses and has scrutinised more than 2 million pages of evidence. I know that the whole House recognises the bravery of the postmasters who fought against enormous odds to see their cause recognised.

Sir Wyn’s report reminds us that blameless people were impoverished, bankrupted, stressed beyond belief, and lost their jobs, marriages, reputations, mental health and, in some cases, their lives. I am sure that the whole House shares my gratitude to Sir Wyn and his team for their work so far. This is only the first volume of their final report, spelling out the scandal’s human impact and looking at the redress schemes that have been put in place in response. The second volume will in due course deal with the causes of the scandal and how repetition can be avoided.

To be clear, I am very sympathetic to Sir Wyn’s 19 recommendations in the volume published today. Clearly, a number of them require careful consideration. We will respond to them promptly, as some concern the ongoing delivery of Horizon redress schemes. Sir Wyn has set us a deadline of 10 October, and we will meet it.

The House will see that Sir Wyn has accepted that

“the Post Office, the Department and Ministers continue to adhere to the aims of providing financial redress, which is full, fair and prompt.”

He also concludes that the majority of people who have accepted offers under the group litigation order scheme

“will have done so because, for them, the offer was full and fair.”

That said, Sir Wyn makes some understandable criticisms, especially of the Horizon shortfall scheme, which we will need to study closely and address.

We inherited a compensation process that was widely seen as too slow, adversarial and legalistic. Well over four years after the first High Court case exposed the scandal, only 2,500 postmasters had had final settlements. There were clearly significant gaps in the compensation process, and many victims had not come forward. Indeed, there was no compensation scheme in place for those postmasters whose convictions had been overturned by Parliament.

A year ago, the Government had paid £236 million in redress. We have now quadrupled that to nearly £1.1 billion. We have launched a compensation scheme for postmasters who have had their convictions overturned—the Horizon convictions redress scheme—and have merged the Post Office’s compensation arrangements for overturned convictions into it. Through the Post Office, we have delivered a £75,000 fixed-sum offer to over 4,200 victims who opted for it.

We have also launched an independent process to allow people to appeal their HSS settlements or offers. That should provide, as Sir Wyn says in his report,

“an opportunity to put right any failures to deliver redress which is full and fair”

for HSS victims.

We have also begun discussions with Fujitsu on their contribution to the costs of the scandal. As the House knows, and as Sir Wyn’s report underlines, there is still a lot more to do. I know that the postmasters who have yet to agree final compensation are frustrated with the delay; so am I.

We have consulted regularly with the Horizon compensation advisory board and others on what more we can do to improve redress. Sir Wyn’s recommendations are very helpful in that regard. Two of his recommendations address issues that we have already been working on across Government and with the advisory board. I can confirm that we accept Sir Wyn’s recommendation that claimants should be able to bank the best offer that they get from the GLO process and that it should not be put at risk if they choose to go to the independent panel.

Secondly, we will provide redress for family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal. I have met the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters, which has campaigned with considerable courage on this issue. Sir Wyn rightly recognises that designing a suitable compensation scheme for family members raises some very difficult issues. None the less, we want to look after those family members who suffered most—meeting Sir Wyn’s recommendation that we should give

“redress to close family members of those most adversely affected by Horizon.”

Given those challenges, we will now discuss the details of how a scheme should be run with claimants’ lawyers, the independent advisory board and the Lost Chances group. It will be open to close family members of existing Horizon claimants who themselves suffered personal injury, including psychological distress, because of their relatives’ suffering. Other than in exceptional circumstances, we will need contemporaneous written evidence of that personal injury.

There are some fundamental lessons to be learned, to which Sir Wyn points, about how compensation following wrongdoing on this scale should be delivered in future. In particular, the Post Office should never have been allowed to run it, decisions on funding should have been made much more quickly, and it should not have needed an ITV drama to stimulate action to overturn hundreds of unjust convictions. We cannot now turn back the clock to fix those fundamental mistakes. We must instead address two challenges.

The first challenge is to make sure that if there is ever another terrible scandal like this one—we all sincerely hope there is not—the victims do not need to bring a traumatic court case to expose it. The second challenge, if another such scandal happens, is that the Government must be set up to offer trusted redress from the very start. Sir Wyn argues that there should be a standing public body to deliver redress in any further scandal. I have a considerable amount of sympathy with that argument, but clearly we need to analyse the options fully before we commit to it. We will reflect on how to address those twin challenges and will bring back our conclusions to the House.

We can never properly recompense a person for being wrongly denied their freedom, for the humiliation of being wrongly accused or for seeing their loved ones in profound distress or worse, and neither can we recompense  them for their good reputation being taken from them. I cannot assuage the anger of the victims, nor will the anger that I feel on their behalf ever be assuaged, but we are determined to do more on redress and beyond, and to do it quickly, to give more of the victims of this appalling scandal at least a measure of the peace that they so rightly deserve. I commend Sir Wyn’s report to the House. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the shadow Minister. \p Harriett Baldwin: I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the release of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon inquiry final report and I put on record my thanks to Sir Wyn Williams and the inquiry team for all the work that they have done, alongside all those who gave evidence.

This inquiry lays bare one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern British history. Volume 1 focuses on redress and the human impact of the Horizon scandal, which has been evolving since 2000. The human impact is particularly devastating, with the report revealing that at least 13 people may have taken their own lives as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. It also recognises that family members have also suffered from this miscarriage of justice. Even though, as the Minister says, we can never recompense a person properly for this miscarriage, I am sure the whole House will want to ensure that the victims are fully compensated by the schemes, and I would like to put on the record my tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who set up this process of redress.

The report has recommended that the Government and/or the Department, and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu, shall provide a written response to Sir Wyn’s recommendations by 10 October. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will be able to say by 10 October whether they will accept all 19 of the report’s recommendations? The report details that there is still much to be done to ensure justice for the victims, so who and how will those responsible be held answerable for the years of denial and suffering?

This was not simply a technical failure; it was a failure of oversight, governance and accountability. The report finds that the Post Office and Fujitsu knew, or at the very least they should have known, that the Horizon IT system had faults. The sub-postmasters are also described

“as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour”

by the two companies. Sir Wyn has stated that there are still more than 3,000 claims to resolve and that there have been egregious delays in compensation. Will the Minister therefore update the House on the most recent status of the compensation schemes? What steps is he taking to address these concerns, and how are the Government ensuring that full, fair and fast compensation is delivered without further bureaucracy or delay?

Will the Minister update us on what action is being taken in relation to Fujitsu, which is still being awarded Government contracts? Fujitsu said that it would wait until the inquiry reports to offer compensation, so will the Minister confirm that there is now nothing preventing  Fujitsu from paying interim compensation? Will he also confirm that it will be made clear how much he believes Fujitsu should contribute to the redress scheme?

In the spending review, the Government allocated £86 million from its transformation fund for the Post Office, specifically earmarked to support investment plans, including replacing the existing Horizon computer system. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of securing a new computer system for the Post Office and whether that system will replace the Horizon system in its entirety? What assessment has he made of the earlier Capture accounting software and its legacy of problems?

Finally, to move on from this protracted miscarriage, will the Minister confirm when we will see the much anticipated Green Paper on the future of the post office network and how the public can have their say on that consultation? The time for half measures is over. Justice delayed is justice denied, and those affected by this scandal deserve nothing less than the full force of the Government’s commitment to truth, reform and redress. Taxpayers also deserve to know how much Ministers think Fujitsu should pay to resolve these terrible wrongs. \p Gareth Thomas: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. She was right to say in her opening remarks about this being the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. The responsibility is therefore on us all to do everything we can to make sure the victims receive full and fair compensation, and to ensure that there is never a repeat.

The hon. Lady specifically challenges me on the question of the 10 October deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has put in place. I can confirm that we are determined to meet that deadline. It is particularly important that we do so, as some of his recommendations concern the ongoing delivery of the Horizon compensation schemes and we do not want, inadvertently or not, to delay or hold back any of those claims.

The hon. Lady rightly gives me the opportunity to again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work when he was the Post Office Minister. Without question, we would be even further behind without the considerable amount of work and effort that he put in. There are many others in the House who have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the sub-postmasters, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I see in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee.

The hon. Lady asked who and how will those responsible be held to account. She knows that Sir Wyn Williams is due to publish the second part of his report, which focuses on those very questions. We will consider carefully what he has to say about that when we receive his report. I suspect that she already knows that the Metropolitan police is leading an investigation into whether criminal responsibility is at play. More than 100 police officers are working on that investigation and they have identified a number of individuals of interest. We will see what they do with regard to those individuals  in due course. As the hon. Lady and the House will understand, Ministers are not in any way involved in such decisions.

What further steps have we taken to deliver and speed up compensation? The hon. Lady will be aware that we have issued the opportunity for sub-postmasters who apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme and who want to accept a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 to do so. We have put in place an appeals process to try to give those who feel they have not received a fair offer to date a chance to get full and fair redress.

There are particular challenges in the Horizon shortfall scheme. If I am honest, it is the scheme that I worry about the most, not least because there are 1,700 cases in which there does not appear to be any evidence of shortfalls. That does not mean that there were no shortfalls; it means that, at this stage, we do not have evidence of what those shortfalls were. As the House would expect, I have gone back to the Post Office and made it clear that we want it to reinvestigate, to see whether evidence can be found in as many of those cases as possible. We are looking very carefully at what we can do about the rest.

On Fujitsu, we will need to see Sir Wyn’s final report to understand fully the degree of Fujitsu’s culpability. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that we think it should bring forward an interim compensation payment, and I hope that it will see the report today and recognise the need to do that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the Green Paper. We hope to publish it very shortly. One of the issues that it will consider is the future of the Post Office’s IT systems, because we certainly need to move on from the past and Horizon. We will set out in a bit more detail at that point what work we are doing in that regard. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Chair of the Select Committee. \p Liam Byrne: On behalf of our Committee, I welcome this report from Sir Wyn Williams. As Jo Hamilton has said, it unmasks the full horror of what was done to the sub-postmasters, including the truth that at least 13 suicides resulted from what the Post Office did to innocent people. Sir Wyn Williams echoes almost all the recommendations our Committee has now made three times to Ministers. There are 3,000 claims still outstanding, and there are, in Sir Wyn’s words, “egregious delays” at every stage of the claims process, so does the Minister now accept that, as we have recommended and Sir Wyn has recommended, up-front legal advice needs to be provided to victims?

Does the Minister also accept that we must now, once and for all, strip the Post Office of any role in the Horizon shortfall scheme? Will the Minister commit to a date for getting rid of the Post Office altogether from that redress scheme? Today’s report makes it clear that at least 160 people in the Post Office knew exactly what was going on, and some of them came to this House and misled Members of this House not once but twice, so is it now the moment for us to commence contempt of Parliament proceedings against the leaders of the Post Office who misled us so badly? \p Gareth Thomas: I want to take this opportunity again to pay tribute to the work of the Business and Trade Committee under my right hon. Friend’s chairmanship. As he has said, there has been a series of recommendations from his Committee, and I recognise that we have not always agreed with all those recommendations. For me, the question about whether to offer legal advice to Horizon shortfall scheme claimants has always been a finely balanced judgment. I say that because it has always been clear that the victims wanted a fast route to secure compensation without the involvement of lawyers, and the fact that so many have accepted the fixed-sum payment is an indication of that appetite. Nevertheless, I recognise that Sir Wyn Williams has given us a clear steer on that particular question, and we will consider that extremely carefully and very quickly.

On the question of whether the Post Office should be stripped completely of responsibility for the Horizon shortfall scheme, there is no doubt that if we were starting afresh, the Post Office would have no responsibility for any of the compensation schemes. When I looked at the question of whether to start over again in the delivery of the compensation schemes and at who should be responsible for their delivery, I recognised that to change completely the processes as they had been set up would see further delay in getting compensation to the victims. I say gently to my right hon. Friend that Sir Wyn Williams has not said today that the Post Office should not be involved in the Horizon shortfall scheme’s delivery. We have been clear that we need to take away responsibility for the most complex cases, and we have set up the appeals scheme to do so. Given the numbers who have come forward with appeals on the Horizon shortfall scheme, I hope that we will be able to give confidence to those people that they will have a chance to get full and fair redress. \p Caroline Nokes: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Sarah Olney: I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement. The Horizon scandal was an appalling miscarriage of justice, and today’s report highlights the extent of the human suffering that it has caused. Reading the stories of some of the victims in this report was truly heartbreaking, and it could not be clearer that far too many people’s lives have been irreparably affected. No scandal of this kind can be allowed to happen ever again. We warmly welcome the publication of the first volume of the independent inquiry’s report, which has the full support of the Liberal Democrats, and I sincerely hope that it will focus Ministers’ minds in getting victims the compensation and justice that they deserve as soon as possible. It is shocking that victims of this scandal have had to wait this long for their rightful compensation and justice. The Government need to move at speed and bring an end to this unacceptable delay.

Although we welcome the promise of full compensation, the Liberal Democrats will continue to hold the Government to account in order to ensure that victims get the payments they deserve as quickly as possible, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will implement the recommendations of today’s report in full? Will they set out a timeline for when all victims can expect to receive full and fair compensation? What conversations have the Government had with the Post  Office and Fujitsu about restorative justice in the light of Sir Wyn’s recommendations? Lastly, when will the Government finally introduce legislation on a full duty of candour, for which sub-postmasters and the victims of so many other scandals and disasters have so long called? \p Gareth Thomas: I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments, and I welcome the challenge to the Government to go further and faster on delivering compensation, not just from her and her party, but from across the House. She asked a similar question to that from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who spoke for the official Opposition, on whether we would accept the recommendations that Sir Wyn has set out today. As I made clear in my opening remarks, we are very sympathetic to all his recommendations. Indeed, I was able to confirm today that we have accepted two of his recommendations: to provide compensation for family members and to move on the question of the best offer. I hope that gives the House confidence that we will meet the deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has imposed on us.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) rightly joins all sides of the House in challenging Fujitsu to recognise its responsibilities. I hope it will read Sir Wyn’s report and conclusions afresh and recognise that it now needs to make an interim payment. Restorative justice is one of the significant recommendations in Sir Wyn’s list, and we will consider that very carefully. There is a series of options as to how one might deliver restorative justice, and there would clearly need to be consultation with the victims. We will think through the different steps that we need to take in that regard. \p Rosie Wrighting: I add my support for the introduction of a redress scheme for close family members. On the Business and Trade Committee, and in my constituency surgeries, I have heard from family members, and it is clear that the trauma of this injustice has been passed down through generations. Can the Minister share any further details on how he expects the scheme to operate, and more importantly, who will be responsible for overseeing the schemes and any actions taken in regard to families affected by the Capture system? \p Gareth Thomas: I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on the Business and Trade Committee and more generally in pushing the Government to do more on full and fair compensation. On the question of family members, Sir Wyn makes it clear in his report not only that offering a compensation scheme for family members is the right thing to do, but that there will be significant design challenges in how such a scheme is put together. We will work with the independent Horizon compensation advisory board, with claimants’ lawyers and with the campaign group Lost Chances on the design of such a scheme.

My hon. Friend briefly mentioned Capture, as did the hon. Member for West Worcestershire. We are in the process of working with a number of the victims of the Capture scandal and their legal representatives to design an effective compensation process for them. There are again some significant challenges around the availability of evidence, given that the use of the Capture software was before the introduction of the Horizon computer  system, and so the amount of evidence available is significantly less. None the less, we are working at pace on the design of such a scheme. \p John Cooper: As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I was aghast to find that the Capture system predates Horizon and goes as far back as 1992; so we are 33 years on. The Minister has touched on the difficulties of getting evidence from that time. Has he made any assessment of how many victims might be involved in this Capture scheme? It looks as though it might be a burgeoning scandal on the scale of the Horizon scheme. \p Gareth Thomas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on the Business and Trade Committee, too. He gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord Beamish, who campaigned for a considerable period of time to bring the House’s attention to the issue of Capture sub-postmasters. No definitive number exists of how many Post Office branches used Capture. There is a rough estimate that some 13.5% of all Post Office agency branches—roughly 18,000 between 1992 and 2000—used Capture before the Horizon system was rolled out in 1999. Given the lack of evidence, we are very much trying to learn the lessons from some of the Horizon compensation schemes in the way in which we design the Capture scheme. We will take forward 150 cases almost as a pilot process and will take stock at the end of that process to see what further work and further tweaks to the design of the scheme we need to make, so that we can deliver fair redress to all those victims of the Post office scandal, too. \p Kate Osborne: Sir Wyn rightly highlights the role Fujitsu must play in restorative justice. I remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and the House that I asked the previous Government to pause and review all Fujitsu contracts, which they refused to do. I thank the Minister for all his work on the matter and for the meetings he has kindly had with me. Does he agree with me and Sir Wyn that it is time that Fujitsu contributed to the compensation and that it is also time we stopped the billions of pounds of Government contracts that it continues to be awarded, including its bid for HMRC’s trader support service, which is worth £355 million alone? I look forward to a response from the Minister’s office to the letter I sent him highlighting this yesterday. \p Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend has been one of those who campaigned consistently over a long period of time for justice for sub-postmasters, in particular for her constituent Chris Head. I hope he and she will recognise that one of the recommendations in Sir Wyn’s report that we confirmed today we will accept is in no small part due to Mr Head and her campaigning on that particular question.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a moral obligation on Fujitsu to contribute to the cost of the scandal. That has been clear for a long time. I welcome the fact that Fujitsu has acknowledged that and has begun discussions with the Government. Sir Wyn’s report today further underlines the case for Fujitsu to make an  interim payment towards the costs of the scandal. On her point more generally about the role of Fujitsu, there is no question but that Fujitsu wants to move out of responsibility for the Horizon system, and I suspect we all want Fujitsu to move out of working with the Post Office. None the less, we need Fujitsu at the moment to continue to maintain the Horizon system, which is key to the work of Post Office branches up and down the country in all our communities, while we work at pace to put in place a better system going forward. \p Andrew Mitchell: This Minister well knows that, across the House, many colleagues for years now have raised deep concerns about what happened. I raised it myself on 10 June 2020, 5 October 2020, 27 April 2021 and 15 December 2021. Many colleagues years and years ago were citing the monstrous injustice and grotesque breach of human rights and civil liberties of our fellow citizens, but it took the ITV drama of 1 January 2024 for the earth to move. That rather begs the question: what is the point of Parliament and its elected representatives? Is it not about time that the institutions of the state got out the handcuffs and held the tax-funded villains who perpetrated this monstrous injustice to full and total account? \p Gareth Thomas: I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his campaigning on this issue. I know that he has continued to push different Governments and different Post Office Ministers on the issues around this scandal, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. He is absolutely right that the people responsible for this scandal need to be held to account. Sir Wyn’s further report will lay bare who is responsible, and the work of the police is ongoing. As I said earlier, 100 police officers are working on this case. They are in touch with sub-postmaster representatives and have identified a series of people who are of interest to their inquiry. As he will understand, Ministers are rightly not involved in those specific discussions, but we are watching with great interest the progress of that police inquiry. We will certainly look to act on the recommendations that Sir Wyn makes when the final part of his report comes out. \p Tulip Siddiq: I thank the Minister for his statement. This scandal was a sorry chapter in our country’s history, and I hope that those who were affected are compensated quickly and fairly. I am sure the Minister will know that this scandal disproportionately affected people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. Of those who were prosecuted, 40% were from BME backgrounds, but I do not feel the report recognises the sensitivity. I recognise that the report cannot address every single angle, but I feel that the way BME people were affected disproportionately could have been highlighted more. What will he do to address the disparity as he moves forward in addressing this scandal? \p Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend raises a significant issue, and one that I have no doubt had a bearing on the way in which the scandal unfolded. She will understand that for a formal view on who was responsible and what went wrong, we need to wait for the final report from Sir Wyn Williams. But it is quite clear that a significant number of sub-postmasters from an ethnic minority are  still waiting for compensation, as indeed a generally significant number of postmasters are waiting for compensation. We need to ensure that all those from an ethnic minority receive compensation, as equally we must give priority to every single person who has yet to receive compensation. \p Chris Law: The Government have been told routinely by organisations such as Scottish Postmasters for Justice and Redress that compensation for victims of the Horizon scandal is taking too long and that the application process is akin to the trauma of a second trial for victims. We have also heard today that Sir Wyn Williams’ report illustrates that victims continue to face an “unnecessarily adversarial attitude” from the Post Office and that the UK Government continue to drag their feet in offering full and swift redress. Given that the Minister previously stood at the Dispatch Box and said that

“justice delayed is justice denied”,—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 373.]

and given the human toll of the scandal revealed today, will this Government finally and immediately end these obstructive processes so that redress can be tackled straight on without waiting for the second volume? \p Gareth Thomas: There is no question but that the compensation process has taken far too long. The scandal could have been stopped a lot earlier. Everybody who was a victim of the scandal should have had compensation—certainly by the time we took office. Having said that, we have set out to speed up the delivery of compensation. We have quadrupled the amount of compensation paid out to victims of the scandal. We have moved at pace to plug some of the obvious gaps in the compensation process. I completely accept the challenge made by the hon. Gentleman, by others across the House, and indeed by sub-postmasters who have yet to receive compensation, that there is still a lot more to do. \p Ian Byrne: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his powerful words, but the publication of the report confirms the heartbreaking scale of the human impact of this shocking miscarriage of justice. The concealment and cover-up of the Horizon scandal follows a familiar pattern. Institutions deceive and distort because they put their reputation before truth and justice, as we have seen before in the infected blood scandal, the nuclear test veterans scandal and, of course, the Hillsborough disaster, among many others. The law that bears that disaster’s name would end the culture of cover-ups that we have heard about today. Does the Minister agree that the report shows why the Government must honour their pledge and promise to enact the Hillsborough law in full and end the culture of cover-ups, which does so much damage to the innocent victims and their families, and to the country’s reputation? \p Gareth Thomas: I have absolutely no doubt that we need to see, in full, who was responsible for this disaster and why. Sir Wyn Williams’s work on that is critical. We await his final report, which will look at what happened, why, and who was responsible. That transparency will be hugely important to help the Post Office, and the country as a whole, to learn lessons from this appalling  scandal. If we need to introduce measures to ensure that the Post Office is never in such a position again, we will certainly look to bring them forward. \p Julian Lewis: The Post Office Horizon scandal has often been compared with the contaminated blood disaster. By coincidence, this very afternoon the relevant all-party parliamentary group, led by the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), has been having a meeting with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. Even if the Minister does not go all the way with Sir Wyn Williams’ suggestion that there might be a standing body responsible for delivering compensation, will the Government look at the experience of the compensation body for that scandal rather than allowing separate disasters to be compensated for in separate stovepipe arrangements? \p Gareth Thomas: To be clear, Sir Wyn Williams’ recommendation of a standing body to deliver compensation is very much to ensure that if there is ever a future disaster on this scale—and we all hope that there is not—the Government are better set up to respond to it. He has not specifically suggested that we transfer into such a body the responsibility for the delivery of compensation schemes at this stage, because doing so would undoubtedly slow down the process. I think that there are parallels with the infected blood inquiry, but there are also differences. We need to learn lessons on the delivery of compensation from the infected blood scandal, the Post Office scandal and other scandals that came before. In that regard, the National Audit Office published important work last summer, which will certainly help to inform our judgment about the case for such a standing body. \p Clive Efford: I associate myself with the comments of the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), about the involvement of the Post Office—I hope the Minister has checks and balances in place to test what information it provides, because it clearly cannot be trusted. My question is about Fujitsu, which stayed quiet while sub-postmasters, including a former constituent of mine, went to prison. The Minister said that the Government are in negotiations with Fujitsu, which sounds like Fujitsu will not pay the compensation that it should. Will he say more about who will be the final arbiter in determining how much Fujitsu should pay in this scandal, which it is fundamentally at the root of? \p Gareth Thomas: I take this opportunity to commend my hon. Friend for his consistent campaigning on this issue. He is absolutely right to underline the moral responsibility that Fujitsu has to contribute to the cost of the scandal. I welcome the fact that Fujitsu has accepted that it has such a moral obligation. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that I think it should bring forward an interim payment, and discussions with it have begun, as I said, but it will be important that we receive the final report from Sir Wyn Williams to understand properly the scale of Fujitsu’s responsibility going forward, as compared with the responsibility of other players in this appalling scandal. I am absolutely clear that Fujitsu does have a clear responsibility. It could begin to act now, and I hope that it does so. \p Christine Jardine: A constituent who I have been representing for two years was unfairly dismissed as a result of the Horizon scandal. I appreciate the effort that the Minister and his predecessor have put into this matter. The report makes it absolutely clear that the compensation system is too cumbersome and complicated for many people, and the Government have said that they will do everything they can to speed it up, but some people are waiting not only for compensation but for recognition of the injustice that was done to them. What will the Minister do to reassure those people and work on their behalf to get them the recognition that will lead to compensation? \p Gareth Thomas: The hon. Lady makes an important and significant point and gives me the opportunity to comment on that particular constituency case, which she and I have discussed a couple of times. She is absolutely right when she alludes to the fact that there are victims of the scandal who have not yet come forward or, perhaps for a number of reasons, put in compensation claims. I hope that the publication of Sir Wyn’s report, and his comments—the criticisms and challenge to the Government on going further, as well as the reassurance that he has offered—will give those who have not yet put in a claim the confidence to do so. On the specific case that she knows very well and has discussed with me, I am determined to move forward. I have taken a number of steps to do so, and I will come back to her. \p David Davis: The Minister plainly agrees that this injustice has gone on too long. Earlier today, I spoke to Janet Skinner, one of the postmasters whose life was wrecked in 2007 when she served nine months in prison after wrongful conviction. She has spent 18 years since then struggling to get compensation and is still battling for it now, forced to wade through endless paperwork and a cruel bureaucratic maze. In her own words, the compensation process has been

“harder than anything I’ve ever had to do before—and I’ve been to prison.”

That is what she said to me today.

Sir Wyn’s report is welcome. I hope it ignites a fire under the Minister, although I know that he is committed to solving problems like Janet’s in months, not years. Can he give me the undertaking that he will solve these problems in months, not years? \p Gareth Thomas: On the right hon. Gentleman’s direct challenge, I certainly want to do that. I completely share his view that every victim who still has not had  compensation has waited too long, and that I in particular, and the whole House, have a responsibility to keep up the pressure to get full and fair compensation for those victims as quickly as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have made some progress in the last 12 months: we have quadrupled the amount of compensation that has been paid out and set up new compensation schemes to begin to address some of the obvious gaps. However, I completely accept the challenge that he, and perhaps Janet Skinner, posed: that we need to go further and faster. \p Sammy Wilson: I also welcome Sir Wyn’s report. It reminds us of the cynical, dishonest and illegal behaviour of Post Office and Fujitsu officials, who caused so much misery to so many people who were doing an honest job and were wrongly accused. The Minister rightly said that he is determined to move on and get redress for those victims, but as long as Post Office officials have anything to do with this compensation scheme, I believe that his honest aim will be thwarted.

Last week I met with four postmasters in Northern Ireland, who told me that despite requests for documentation—some dating back to January—it is still not forthcoming. It is being drip-fed, which means that when new information is sought, they go back to the beginning of the 40-day period. Even when forensic economists have looked at their claims, in some cases they are discounted by up to 90%. I can only say that those are obstructionist tactics. As long as those who still believe that they did nothing wrong are in charge, we will not achieve the objective of quick redress. \p Gareth Thomas: I recognise and understand why there is considerable scepticism across the House about the Post Office continuing to have any role in the delivery of any part of the compensation process. As I said, when I first came into this role, I looked very carefully at whether we should essentially start over and take the Post Office out of the compensation process. I was persuaded that if we did that, we would significantly delay still further the delivery of compensation to the victims. Sir Wyn Williams made a similar point today while making a series of recommendations to Government to go further and faster, in particular on the Horizon shortfall scheme. As I have alluded to, I am extremely sympathetic to his 19 recommendations. There are some that we need to look at in more detail before I come back to the House and, particularly, to Sir Wyn.

The right hon. Gentleman referenced conversations that he has had with a number of sub-postmasters in his constituency, or in Northern Ireland more generally. If he wants to bring those cases to my attention outside this session, I would be very happy to look at them. \p Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a brief point of order following the sad death of Lord Norman Tebbit last night. I feel particularly touched by it because I served with him in Parliament between 1983 and 1992, and I suppose I am one of the last Thatcherites left standing here. To us, he was an icon of everything we believed in about small government and deregulation. He was the original Brexiteer and the original campaigner against woke. He had an extraordinary ability with words. He came from humble backgrounds and summed up everything that we believed in by pulling himself up and achieving greatness.

I do not want to end on a political note; what I really want to end on is a personal note. I know that he had a reputation as a hard-hitting politician, but above all he was a supremely kind man. He was kind to us younger Members of Parliament. When Mrs Thatcher resigned, I remember sitting in the Tea Room and asking him if he would stand as leader of the Conservative party. To my regret, he felt that he could not. The reason why was those awful events in the bombing of the Grand Hotel in 1984. He showed tremendous courage and stoicism. Above all, although he led our party to victory as chairman in the 1987 election, he refused high office because he wanted to look after his wife Margaret. He devoted his whole life to her in terms of love and devotion as after those terrible events she was in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. It is a great honour and delight in this short point of order to pay tribute to my friend Lord Norman Tebbit. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his touching tribute, which is now on the record. \p John Whittingdale: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I started working as special adviser to Norman Tebbit in the Department of Trade and Industry on the Monday morning after the Brighton bomb. For those first few weeks, I went to visit him with members of his private  office in Stoke Mandeville hospital. The reason why he was in that specialist unit was that, while he was badly injured, he wanted to be nearby to his wife. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was completely right: he gave tremendous service to this country, but he felt that his first duty had to be to look after his wife.

It was a terrific loss to my party and to the country when he felt that he was no longer able to serve in government because of the need to care for Margaret. Had that not happened, he might well have become Prime Minister. He was a remarkable person whom we will miss greatly. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has helped to put his service on the record. \p Judith Cummins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his touching tribute. \p Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I met Lord Tebbit only shortly after he had stepped down from this House, but even at that stage of his career he still had the inherent kindness and commitment to come to my constituency to support a relatively new Member of this House. Courage and commitment really are what encapsulated his character. He proved that when serving his country in the inherently dangerous role of a Royal Air Force pilot, and he proved it further in achieving something that Prime Ministers alone might have failed to have achieved in tackling the abuse of trade union power by unrepresentative militants. Trade unions are much more representative of their memberships today thanks to what he did.

As we have heard, Lord Tebbit proved his courage and commitment finally in his devotion to his wife, who was grievously injured as a result of a terrorist campaign, the aftermath of which our legal system to this very day still finds difficult to cope with. Altogether, he served his country magnificently, and he was a role model of integrity and courage that people can admire, even if they do not necessarily subscribe to everything in which he believed and for which he campaigned. \p Judith Cummins: I thank all right hon. Members for their touching tributes. \p UNKNOWN: Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23) \p Nesil Caliskan: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the evaluation of training about special educational needs and disabilities in initial teacher education; to require training about special education needs and disabilities for certain persons working in schools as part of their continuing professional development; and for connected purposes.

May I first remark on how touching the tributes we just heard were? Every child deserves an inclusive education in an environment that enables them to thrive. Every child should have teachers and support staff who understand their needs and have the professional capacity and skills to care for and teach each child. I propose this Bill because sadly that is not the experience of many children with special educational needs living in my constituency. Children in Barking and Dagenham have been let down because the national SEND system is broken. Across the country, parents feel hopeless and teachers are overwhelmed.

Last night, my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) secured an important debate in this House on SEND. She highlighted that requests for education, health and care plans in Barking and Dagenham doubled in 2022—an increase that was four times the national average. I know that improving the life chances of children, regardless of their background or needs, is central to the Labour Government’s mission. However, we cannot achieve it without fixing special educational needs support. As my Bill sets out, requiring compulsory SEND training for teachers and teaching staff would provide them with the skills they need to educate our children.

Initial teacher education and continued professional development programmes have no dedicated SEND training. SEND seminars and sessions are woven into the existing curriculum but fail to give teachers the expertise they need to support SEND children. The depth and practical application of existing training is often too variable, and many teachers feel underprepared. Teachers require professional expertise to effectively provide wraparound support for all children, but I am afraid children with SEND are instead forced into an overstretched EHCP process managed by overburdened local authorities because mainstream school support has been stripped away after 14 years of Conservative cuts.

When I visit schools and meet parents in my constituency—I recently held a coffee morning attended by more than 100 people—I hear the same thing over and over again: early help makes a big difference. Early help can happen only with appropriately trained teachers with the skills to identify children in need. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that ensuring a child receives speech and language support, for example, would reduce behavioural issues in children with SEND, making a mainstream setting more successful for many children who might otherwise be excluded from school. SEND children are five times more likely to be excluded and  have some of the widest attainment gaps of any demographic, impacting on earning potential and overall life chances. It does not have to be that way.

With more than 50% of students with an EHCP being in mainstream schools, the current system is letting down children who have special educational needs and disabilities. Schools are trying their best, but the truth is that teachers feel ill-equipped to provide support for children with SEND. One teacher in Barking and Dagenham told me about the four-hour training seminar on SEND that they attended, but that was their only training, followed by a “get on with it” attitude from the education sector. The lack of training means that well-meaning teachers inevitably create an exclusive education environment, resulting in nine out of 10 children with SEND being left behind. This is a two-tier education system, working against our children who have the greatest need.

Early intervention must be at the core of the Government’s SEND strategy, but it will not be successful if it is left only to special educational needs co-ordinators and teaching assistants, and this Bill seeks to address that. For most schools, a dedicated SENCO on the school’s senior leadership team is a nice to have, rather than a must have. Parents—certainly those I have met in my constituency—are often left wondering who they can turn to as they fight to get the support that their child deserves. One parent in my constituency told me about the exhausting decade they have had fighting for an EHCP for their son, who has autism. After five years of school becoming too difficult a challenge for her son once he started secondary school, in 2020 her little boy was referred by the NHS to neurology. It took until 2024 for a doctor to confirm that he also had epilepsy, which was causing brain seizures resulting in short absences. The point here, which the little boy’s mother made to me, is that her child was clearly struggling at school for years, finding it difficult to focus. That was apparent before the 10-year fight to secure an EHCP for her son, which she only managed to do towards the end of his time at secondary school. This little boy was in mainstream school for 10 years, being taught by teachers with inadequate SEND training. His mother feels that teachers equipped with better skills and training on SEND would have identified her child’s needs sooner, and could have helped him earlier.

SEND support for children is a complicated picture that requires input from different agencies, and parents must always be at the heart of any discussion or decision about SEND support for their child. That is especially true for the many children who will, and do, fall short of the statutory duty to secure an EHCP. With the lack of specialist support or training for teaching staff in mainstream schools, those children are too often left unsupported. Of course, for some children, access to specialist SEND schools is the most appropriate fit; however, the majority of SEND children are in mainstream schools. We must therefore recognise that our schools should fundamentally shift to being better equipped to support children with SEND, with teachers who are better trained, because SEND children deserve the opportunity to succeed in our mainstream schools.

Being a good teacher, or good at any of the professions that look after and teach our children, takes a special kind of person. The responsibility these people hold is greater than their responsibility to any individual child;  they are helping raise and educate the next generation in our communities, and shaping our society—a society in which I want everyone to thrive and to which I want everyone to contribute, including those with SEND. This Bill supports teachers to do their job properly. They deserve adequate training, enabling them to deliver the early help that children with SEND need. I ask hon. Members from across the House for their support for this Bill, so that we can begin to fix the broken SEND system in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Nesil Caliskan, Anna Dixon, Chris Ward, Chris Kane, Mr Clive Betts, Danny Beales, Daniel Francis, Dawn Butler, Jen Craft, Lloyd Hatton and Sarah Hall present the Bill.

Nesil Caliskan accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 281). \p UNKNOWN: Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee \p UNKNOWN: “Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must consult on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch in the top five tiers of the men's game in England.”—(Mr French.)

Brought up, and read the First time. \p Louie French: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. \p Judith Cummins: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Duty not to promote or engage in advertising and sponsorship related to gambling—

“A regulated club or English football competition must not promote or engage in advertising or sponsorship related to gambling.”

This new clause prevents regulated clubs and competitions from promoting or engaging in gambling advertising or sponsorship.

New clause 3—Free to air coverage—

“(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section ‘free-to-air television’ means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

New clause 4—Fan representation: mandatory golden share—

“(1) A licensed club must, as a condition of holding a licence under section 15, issue a non-transferable golden share to a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan organisation.

(2) The golden share must confer on its holder the right to veto any proposal by the club to—

(a) relocate the club’s home ground outside its current local authority area,

(b) change the club’s name,

(c) materially alter the club’s primary colours or badge, or

(d) enter into or withdraw from any competition not sanctioned by the Football Association, the Premier League, or the English Football League.

(3) A licensed club must—

(a) consult the holder of the golden share on any material changes to the club’s ownership, governance, or strategic direction,

(b) provide the holder with access to relevant financial and governance information reasonably required to fulfil its function, and

(c) facilitate structured and regular engagement between the club and the holder of the golden share.

(4) The Regulator must monitor compliance with this section and may—

(a) issue guidance to clubs and Supporters’ Trusts on the operation of the golden share,

(b) impose licence conditions or financial penalties for non-compliance, and

(c) take enforcement action where a club fails to uphold the rights associated with the golden share.

(5) In this section—

(a) ‘Supporters’ Trust’ means a formally constituted, democratic, not-for-profit organisation that is recognised by the Regulator as representing the interests of a club’s supporters;

(b) ‘golden share’ means a special share or equivalent legal instrument issued to a Supporters’ Trust, entitling its holder to the rights and protections described in this section.”

This new clause would give fans a veto on club proposals, exercised through a recognised Supporters’ Trust or equivalent democratic fan body.

New clause 5—Protection of assets of regulated clubs—

“(1) Where any of the following assets belong to a regulated club, the asset must not be removed from the club’s ownership or used as collateral for a secured loan—

(a) any stadium,

(b) any training facility,

(c) any trophies,

(d) any car park,

(e) any hotel.

(2) But subsection 1 does not apply to a car park or a hotel where—

(a) the regulated club can demonstrate to the IFR’s satisfaction that the asset is causing financial loss or poses a material risk to the club’s financial sustainability, and

(b) the IFR has provided prior written approval for the disposal of the asset or the use of the asset as collateral.

(3) Where the current owner of a regulated club owns any asset listed in subsection (1)(a) to (c), the owner may not sell the club unless the owner has inserted the asset into the club’s ownership structure.”

This new clause would ensure that the club assets listed above are recognised as the inalienable property of the club rather than the club’s owners.

New clause 6—Financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud: protection etc—

“(1) The IFR must, in any strategy it publishes, set out measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective.

(2) Measures to be set out under subsection (1) must include oversight of—

(a) robust education for relevant players on matters relating to financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud,

(b) industry wide standards aimed at relevant players in relation to those matters, and

(c) an equitable system of support and redress for relevant players where they have been affected by those matters.

(3) In this section, a ‘relevant player’ means a current or former player in English football who—

(a) has been a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(b) is at risk of becoming a victim of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud.”

New clause 7—Human rights and modern slavery considerations—

“(1) When considering whether a person (‘A’) satisfies the requirement in section 26(7)(c), the Regulator shall have regard to (among other things)—

(a) whether A has been complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of international human rights law, whether of any international human rights treaty, customary law, or other instrument,

(b) whether A has been convicted, cautioned or reprimanded or complicit in any egregious or consistent violation of domestic human rights legislation, including breaching provisions in the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015 or equivalent national legislation,

(c) whether A has been subject to a Slavery and Trafficking Prevention Order,

(d) whether A has been found liable in a civil claim relating to a human rights violation,

(e) whether A has been convicted of an offence, cautioned or reprimanded for failing to comply with their human rights and modern slavery reporting and due diligence obligations under applicable domestic legislation,

(f) any representations made by A or the club in accordance with the notice.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) where A is a body corporate or other non-corporeal entity (including a government or nation state), the Regulator shall consider the actions of anyone who controls that body corporate or entity (and ‘control’ shall have the meaning given in section 255 of the Companies Act 2006), and

(b) the Regulator shall have absolute discretion to determine whether conduct falls within any of the categories in paragraphs (a) to (d).

(3) In respect of subsection (1)(c) and (d), a risk of disrepute shall not be valid grounds for disqualification of any person if such disrepute would, in the reasonable opinion of the Regulator, be unfounded.

(4) In accordance with Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraph 15, the Regulator may establish a committee or committees to discharge its functions under this Clause.”

New clause 8—Duty to address ticketing market practices—

“Regulated clubs and competition organisers must take reasonable steps to—

(a) monitor practices in the secondary ticketing market that may lead to excessive price mark-ups or unauthorised resale;

(b) provide transparent information about ticket pricing and resale policies, including the face value of tickets; and

(c) provide official ticket exchange channels where reasonably practicable.”

New clause 9—Prioritisation of competitions within English football—

“(1) This section applies where a regulated club is participating in a competition outside of English Football.

(2) Where the IFR considers that the regulated club’s participation in the competition is damaging to the heritage of English football, the IFR must take what measures it considers necessary to prevent that damage.

(3) Measures that the IFR might take include a direction to the club that it—

(a) prioritise any fixtures taking place in a competition within English football over those in the competition outside of English football;

(b) cease participation in the competition outside of English football.”

New clause 10—Player welfare—

“Within one year of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must review how to improve the welfare of football players. This review should include consideration of—

(a) neurodegenerative diseases incurred by heading footballs;

(b) the number of games that footballers are required to play each season; and

(c) the impact on the welfare of current and former professional footballers as a result.”

New clause 11—Correspondence about the IFR—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish any correspondence received by the Secretary of State from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the IFR’s exercise of its functions.

(2) The IFR must publish any correspondence it receives from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) about the exercise of its functions.”

This new clause would require correspondence between FIFA and UEFA and either the Secretary of State, or the IFR, with regards to the IFR’s regulatory functions, to be published.

New clause 12—Impact on Regulator of changes in Government administration—

“If the Department for Culture Media and Sport is abolished, or its functions in relation to football substantially relocated, the Government must automatically review the suitability of the continuation of the IFR and the impact that the abolition or relocation will have on the IFR.”

This new clause would require the Government to review the IFR in the instance that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were abolished, or its functions substantially altered.

New clause 13—Neurodegenerative care scheme—

“(1) The IFR must establish and supervise a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care and support to any person who has developed a neurodegenerative condition linked to their career in English football.

(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out—

(a) minimum requirements for the scheme,

(b) a timescale for the scheme’s establishment, and

(c) arrangements and a timescale for a periodic review of the scheme.

(3) The IFR must ensure that, as a condition of organising any competition specified pursuant to section 2(3), all specified competition organisers jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme in accordance with subsections (4) to (8).

(4) For the purpose of operating, managing and funding the scheme, all of the specified competition organisers must form a Joint Coordinating Committee (‘JCC’).

(5) Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer is eligible for the scheme.

(6) The scheme must provide care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition which is deemed, pursuant to subsection (7)(a), to have been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football.

(7) The JCC must, under the supervision of the IFR, appoint a panel of independent experts—

(a) to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused or contributed to by playing or training activities within English football, and

(b) to determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in the case of each eligible person.

(8) The IFR must ensure that the JCC acts upon the panel’s determinations.

(9) Where—

(a) specified competition owners, through the JCC, cannot agree about the operation, management or funding of the scheme, or

(b) at any time, the scheme does not meet either—

(i) the aim under subsection (1), or

(ii) any requirements set out in regulations under subsection (2),

the Secretary of State may, having taken advice from the IFR, make a direction about the operation, management or funding of the scheme.”

New clause 14—Duty to vet financial investment in football clubs—

“(1) The IFR must review and approve all proposed financial investments in regulated clubs from funds which are located outside of the United Kingdom.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include—

(a) assessing if any sources of revenue for such a fund is the result of money laundering;

(b) assessing if the owner of such a fund is charged with any breaches of UK or international law.

(3) If upon completing a review under subsection (1) the IFR has determined a source of revenue for a fund is the result of money laundering or the owner of a fund is in breach of UK or international law the IFR must direct the club to reject the investment.”

Amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (3) and insert—

“(3) For the purposes of this Act a ‘specified competition’ includes—

(a) the Premier League,

(b) the English Football League, and

(c) the National League.

(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament amend the competitions specified in section (3).”

This amendment would specify the leagues that are to be classed as “specified competitions” under Act.

Amendment 3, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of people who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football forms part of any strategy published by the IFR, and to oversee an equitable and fair industry financial scheme to provide care for those people.”

Amendment 12, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to take responsibility for the protection, financial welfare, and safeguarding of current and former players involved in English football who—

(i) have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, or

(ii) are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement, or fraud, (referred to in this Act as ‘the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective’).”

Amendment 29, page 5, line 14, at end insert—

“(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].”

This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC13).

Amendment 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 27, at end insert—

“(d) conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies, including FIFA and UEFA.”

This amendment requires the IFR to exercise its functions so as to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies.

Amendment 1, in clause 10, page 7, line 6, at end insert—

“(d) an assessment of the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets.”

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its state of the game report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 21, in clause 11, page 7, line 41, at end insert—

“(7) No football governance statement may have effect unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.”

This amendment would require the football governance statement to be approved by Parliament before it could have effect.

Amendment 2, in clause 14, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the impact that the IFR’s activities have had on the price of match tickets, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in its annual report the impact that its regulatory activities have had on ticket prices.

Amendment 28, page 9, line 3, at end insert—

“(aa) the cumulative impact of the costs imposed on clubs through compliance with the IFR’s regulatory regime, and”.

This amendment would require the IFR to include in the annual report an account of the financial costs imposed on clubs through its regulatory requirements on them.

Amendment 26, in clause 17, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

“(9) The IFR must make the decision whether to grant a regulated club a provisional operating licence within the period of one month.

(10) The IFR may extend the period in subsection (9) by no more than two weeks if it requires more time to consider the application due to—

(a) unusual staffing pressures, or

(b) discrepancies or abnormalities with the application.

(11) If the IFR extends the period as per subsection (10), it must give a notice to the relevant club stating—

(a) that the period has been extended,

(b) the length of the extension, and

(c) the reasons for the extension.”

This amendment places a time limit of one month for the IFR to decide whether to grant a provisional operating license.

Amendment 15, in clause 37, page 28, line 28, at end insert—

“(fa) whether the individual is a member of a proscribed organisation as per section (3) and schedule (2) of the Terrorism Act 2000.”

This amendment requires that IFR, in determining whether an owner or officer has the requisite honesty or integrity, to consider whether the person is a member of an organisation proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Amendment 8, in clause 46, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) in the case of a disposal under subsection (1)(a), it has taken reasonable steps to establish that the majority of the club’s fans domiciled in England and Wales approve of the disposal.”

Amendment 9, page 39, line 5, at end insert—

“(6A) Before the IFR grants an approval under subsection (6) it must—

(a) consult the supporters of the body in question, the relevant competition organisers and persons representing the local community with which the body is associated, and

(b) have regard to the views expressed by those consulted.”

Amendment 24, in clause 53, page 42, line 3, at end insert—

“(1A) But the IFR may not require a club with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees to pay the IFR a levy in respect of a chargeable period during which the club is a licensed club.”

This amendment would exempt clubs with fewer than 10 full time equivalent employees from having to pay the levy.

Government amendments 4 to 7.

Amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”

Amendment 19, page 87, line 37, at end insert—

“(5) No member may be appointed to the Board if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Board.

Amendment 23, page 88, line 37, at end insert—

“(1A) But the number of persons in the employment of IFR (including any persons seconded to the IFR) must at no time exceed 50.”

Amendment 22, page 89, line 9, leave out subparagraph (3) and insert—

“(3) The IFR may pay a person appointed as the Chief Executive no more than £172,153 per annum.

(3A) Notwithstanding the remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer as per paragraph (3), the IFR must pay its employees such remuneration as may be determined by the non-executive members.”

This amendment limits the pay of the Chief Executive.

Amendment 20, page 93, line 5, at end insert—

“(4A) No member may be appointed to the Expert Panel if they currently have any broadcast or media interests or any role in a television or media broadcast that relates to football.”

This amendment prohibits any person who currently has any interests or roles in a television or media broadcast that relates to football from being appointed to the Expert Panel.

Amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 99, line 37, at end insert—

“(f) the club’s political statements and positions.”

This amendment ensures that clubs have to engage their fans on the political statements a club might adopt.

Amendment 10, in schedule 5, page 100, line 26, at end insert—

“(e) an Asset of Community Value condition.”

This amendment adds the requirement to attach an Asset of Community Value condition to each club operating licence.

Amendment 27, page 102, line 7, at end insert

“including the club’s official charity.”

This amendment would make clear that the activities of a football club’s official charity can be counted towards it meeting the corporate governance code.

Amendment 17, page 102, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (e).

This amendment removes the requirement for the corporate governance statement to cover what action the club is taking to improve equality, diversity and inclusion.

Amendment 13, page 102, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) The IFR must ensure that the persons referred to in subsections 1(a) and 1(b) are representative of the majority of the club’s fanbase and represent the club’s key supporters’ groups.

(1B) If it is unclear which are a club’s key supporters’ groups the IFR must consult with the Football Supporter’s Association to determine which groups apply for the purposes of this paragraph.”

Amendment 11, page 103, line 20, at end insert—

“Asset of Community Value

11A The Asset of Community Value condition is a condition requiring a club to either—

(a) obtain and maintain Asset of Community Value status for its home ground; or

(b) incorporate into its Articles of Association a restriction which substantially mirrors the restrictions placed on Assets of Community Value under the Localism Act 2011,

and the Secretary of State may create regulations detailing further the implementation of the Asset of Community Value condition.”

The amendment defines the Asset of Community Value condition that clubs are required to obtain for their home ground and is consequential on Amendment 10. \p Louie French: I also put on record my thanks to Lord Tebbit for his life of service to both our country and our party. He will be dearly missed by us all. In opening today’s proceedings, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is a privilege to speak on Report for the countless fans who fill the stands week in and week out, wear their club’s shirt with pride and keep our clubs alive, come rain or shine. I put on the record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions in Committee, and to everyone who has engaged with the process outside of Westminster. For all the high talk of regulators, quangos and corporate structures, let us never forget that football in this country is not an industry dreamed up by officials on neat PowerPoint slides or Excel spreadsheets, but a living tradition that is part of who we are and part of the fabric of our nation.

That is precisely why we must be so careful now: because this Bill, well-intentioned though it may be, risks replacing one danger—a minority of reckless owners—with another, namely reckless political interference that risks the independence of sport. This Bill, which wants to tackle cowboy owners, comes from an incoherent Government under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to be the new sheriff of football, and from a Department that has seen the Whip resign since the last meeting of the Bill Committee. We really are in “The Thick of It”. \p Clive Betts: Would the shadow Minister like to join me in thanking the shadow Secretary of State, his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for first introducing legislation to this House that promoted an independent football regulator? [Interruption.] \p Louie French: As the shadow Secretary of State says from a sedentary position, “You’ve messed it all up”, and I am sure that does not apply just to football.

Before I move on to our amendments, it is worth reminding ourselves how we got here. English football was not invented by corporate lawyers or politicians. Its origins are in the history and soul of communities across our country. It is the same spirit that today sees parents across the country drive through wind and rain on a Sunday morning so that their child can run out in their local club colours. It is a spirit that does not appear on balance sheets, but without sustainable finances there is no football at all. Sadly, we have all seen those cases where financial mismanagement and reckless spending have seen clubs and fans damaged. That is why the Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game.

We support better fan engagement, respecting the heritage of our clubs and strengthening ownership tests to help prevent the issues we have seen at the likes of Bury, Charlton and Reading. The fan-led review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association and leagues. Having spoken to many football fans across the country and also in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree with that even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football by appointing a Labour crony.

During the passage of the Bill, we have heard from the FA and the Premier League that they are concerned by regulatory scope creep, and we have sought in our amendments to push back on the tentacles of this socialist state seeking to strangle with red tape our beautiful game—this great British success story, which attracts millions of fans around the world and contributes £8 billion to our economy each season. Our amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from expanding the leagues in scope of the regulator under clause 2 without the approval of Parliament. We must give clubs certainty and prevent Whitehall empire building.

We must also have transparency about how much these new regulatory burdens are costing clubs and ticket prices, both today and in the future. That is why we have tabled amendments 1, 2 and 28. Every pound spent on new compliance staff is a pound not spent on grassroots players, stadium maintenance or affordable ticket prices. Every new bureaucrat is another tenner on a family’s matchday cost. In the end, the fans pick up the tab, just like always. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that these costs will be more than £125 million, with smaller clubs expecting a bill of up to £47 million. We know that many smaller clubs will have no choice but to pass that cost on to fans, and the Government and their regulator must be honest about that.

Members can help limit those additional costs by supporting our amendments 22 and 23, which would limit the size of the Government’s new regulator and cap the pay of the chief executive at the same level as  the Prime Minister. The Government state that they want their regulator to be light-touch, but they vote against limits being placed upon it. That leads to the question: why are they saying one thing while doing the opposite in Westminster? Is it because of inexperience, or is the truth that this is yet another example of jobs for the boys, to the cost of fans? That is why we have tabled amendments that would limit political interference in the independence of sport.

We believe that fans should be consulted on any political statements made by clubs. Football clubs must not be mouthpieces for whichever fashionable cause of the time, and we believe that politics should be kept out of sport wherever possible. When a club speaks, it speaks for its fans and the local community. If it wants to do that on matters far beyond football, it should ask those fans first. \p Bobby Dean: Would the shadow Minister mind telling the House what these fashionable causes that football clubs should not speak about are? \p Louie French: I am happy to do so. Throughout Committee stage we have been quite clear—as the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), will say—that we do not believe that that includes the likes of remembrance, which we is differ from political causes. However, as we have said, we do not believe that clubs should be getting involved in politics, and that is a hill that we are willing to die on.

My amendment 17 to schedule 5 would remove the requirement for additional reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion. We all know that football must be welcoming to everyone. Racism and bigotry have no place on the terraces, just as they have no place in wider society. Football has made huge progress by itself, with a range of initiatives already in the game including Kick It Out, Show Racism the Red Card, the Premier League Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Standard framework, the English Football League’s equality code of practice, anti-racism education and mentoring schemes. The game has done that not because a Government regulator told it to, but because it is right, it works and fans support it. However, fans do not pay their hard-earned money at the turnstiles to fund diversity paperwork. Our amendment leaves inclusion where it belongs: on the pitch, in the stands and in the community.

Let me now turn to clause 7, and to new clause 11 in my name. The new clause seeks to ensure that the IFR exercises its functions to avoid conflicts with the regulations and rules of international footballing bodies. FIFA and UEFA rules are clear: national associations must be free from undue political interference. Countries that break that rules have been banned before: just ask the Greek football committee.

The Government are sleepwalking towards a giant own goal, and this time there is no VAR to save us. We already know that UEFA has written to the Secretary of State setting out its concerns about the Bill, and that the letter arrived after the Government had introduced its expanded version. UEFA writes:

“One particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football.”

Unfortunately, the Minister could not give us enough reassurance about Government interference with English football, which is why I have re-tabled my amendment. We know that UEFA is concerned about the potential for scope creep, and that the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond its loosely defined current competencies. Such an expansion, intentional or otherwise, into broader aspects of football governance could undermine the established structures and processes of the sport, and amount to Government interference. \p Clive Betts: I do not whether the shadow Minister can get some help from his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench. I wonder whether, when the right hon. Gentleman was in the Government, he received any correspondence from UEFA and FIFA. Given the openness that the shadow Minister is calling for, will he now publish any correspondence received by the last Government? \p Louie French: That is quite a rehearsed line that the hon. Gentleman is seeing to play out. As we heard in Committee, the Minister has sought to reassure the House that UEFA has no problems with the Bill. If that is the case, why is the letter not being laid in the House so that all Members can vote with full confidence in what is being said? What is being briefed to the press differs significantly from what the Minister is telling Members today.

So far, the Minister has refused to allow Parliament to see that letter so that we can scrutinise the Bill properly in the fullest possible way and in the proper context. Let me will ask her again now: what is she so afraid of? Is she scared that, given the Secretary of State is already under investigation for appointing one of her donors as chair, the publication of the letter will prove to be yet another nail in the coffin of her regulator?

Let me now turn to schedule 2. Any regulator must be credible, and that means independent beyond any doubt. But what have we seen? A preferred chair with a hidden political donation, a Secretary of State forced to recuse herself only when exposed, and a revolving door— \p Lisa Nandy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Louie French: I will give way happily. \p Lisa Nandy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, given that he has named me. May I ask him why the previous Government—including his colleague the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him and who was the Minister responsible at the time—actively headhunted the individual in question and added him to the shortlist? [Interruption.] They can shake their heads all they like, but that is true. \p Louie French: The Secretary of State has, either deliberately or not deliberately, just misled the House. The gentleman in question—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The gentleman in question has already said— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I understand that the shadow Minister may not have meant to say that the Secretary of State has deliberately misled the House; he may want to clarify that. \p Louie French: I will reflect on that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] And I withdraw it. [Interruption.] I have said that I withdraw it; I do not know what the problem is. Members can scream and shout all they want, but the reality is that in the Select Committee, the chair in question said very clearly that he had been approached by civil servants, not by the then Minister in question. The Minister in question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has already said on the Floor of the House that he did not approach the said gentleman. Perhaps the Secretary of State would also like to reflect on her comments. There is a revolving door of vested interests ready to leap in. We would not let the chairman of a rival club—[Interruption.] You are already under investigation; I am not sure you want to make it worse. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why let— \p Judith Cummins: Order. I am sure the shadow Minister did not mean to infer that I was under investigation. \p Louie French: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise. You are not under investigation, but the Secretary of State and the Government are. That is a matter of public record. We would not let the chairman of a rival club referee a cup final, so why would we let people with political or commercial conflicts of interest sit at the very top of this new football referee? My amendments to schedule 2 are basic due diligence: they would mean no party hacks in the chair and full declarations of conflicts of interest, to avoid the mess that this Government have got themselves into. Amendment 18 would put a stop to the cronyism once and for all, and give the public proper transparency. It is not radical; it is responsible. If we do not accept it, the regulator will fail before the first whistle blows.

We have re-tabled new clauses that we still believe would strengthen the Bill. Let me begin with the welfare of players past and present, who run on to the pitch every weekend and give us great entertainment. We cannot ignore the fact that, for too long, the welfare of players has too often been an afterthought once the final whistle blows and the crowds go home. New clause 10 calls for the Secretary of State to conduct within one year of this Bill passing a serious review of how we can better protect players past, present and future. The new clause does not dictate solutions; it demands a serious, evidence-led review. It asks the Secretary of State to bring together the governing bodies, medical experts, clubs and players to ensure that the beautiful game does not come at the cost of the minds and bodies of those who play it. We hope the Government listen.

Last but certainly not least, our new clause 1 would require the Government to consult on calling full-time on the two-tier approach to football fans. The alcohol ban, which has been in place since 1985, was introduced to help curb hooliganism on the terraces during the problematic era of British football. Forty years on, and with the modern game enjoying a more family-friendly atmosphere in stadiums across the country, clubs, fans and the Conservatives are urging the Government to consult on lifting the ban on alcohol. As football fans know, the legacy ban sees fans rushing to drink their  beer before kick-off and at half-time. This often leads to fans being delayed on entering stadiums, and to overcrowding on concourses. We have listened to clubs and fans, especially those lower down the football pyramid, and urge the Government to end the two-tier approach to football fans as part of this Bill. New clause 1 has support across this House, and we hope it will be supported today.

We are all here today because we care about English football, but there are fundamental differences between us on the Opposition Benches, who want the Bill to be delivered in a light-touch way, and the Government’s heavy-handed political regulator. I stand here today because I want to see football succeed, not nationalised by stealth. We want clubs to be safeguarded from dodgy owners, but not strangled in red tape. We want fans to have a real say, not ticked off on a form buried in a filing cabinet. We want inclusion that works, not paperwork that gathers dust. Above all, we want football to remain what it has always been: something built by the people and for the people, not the political classes.

Good regulation can help the referee to blow the whistle when rules are broken, but it should not dictate every pass, every tackle and every free kick. The amendments in my name seek to limit the damage caused by this Bill. They park the bus against political overreach, and let football play on. If, like me, hon. and right hon. Members really love football, the muddy pitches, the terraces and the songs that never change, by all means blow the whistle on the bad owners. However, we must also call time on Ministers who think they can better run leagues from Westminster.

Football does not belong to the Government. It belongs to the people who stand shoulder to shoulder in the stands, win or lose. Let us do right by them today. \p Stephanie Peacock: I am pleased to be responding on Report as the Football Governance Bill enters its final stages in the House of Commons. I begin by sending my condolences to the family of Liverpool’s Diogo Jota, who tragically lost his life last week at just 28 years of age, alongside his brother. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts to their loved ones.

English football is one of our proudest traditions. It is more than just a game. Football brings us together, providing a source of local pride and uniting us in victory and in loss. The premier league, the EFL and the national league attract some of the best players in the world. In return, we find fans of English football clubs in almost every country. However, despite the global success story of English football, there are underlying fragilities in the game, and this Labour Government are committed to tackling them, as we are the party on the side of football fans. We have seen too many instances of irresponsible owners, unsustainable financial models and inadequate regulation casting a shadow over too many clubs, as fans of Bury, Derby County and countless others know all too well. The current issues at Sheffield Wednesday and Morecambe need resolving now, and they demonstrate the urgent need for this Bill to become law.

This change has been a long time coming, dating back in this place to the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee report of 2011. The ill-fated super  league attempt led, of course, to the fan-led review, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, who pioneered that work. \p Ian Lavery: My hon. Friend mentions that Conservative Minister, and Tory Members basically wrote the vast majority of this Bill, but then they decided to vote against it. I am confused about that, but could she explain to me why they think this is a socialist Bill and that football is being nationalised? I think it is absolutely ridiculous. \p Stephanie Peacock: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

“I hope that whoever wins the election on 4 July will see this as a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans.”––[Official Report, Football Governance Public Bill Committee, 23 May 2024; c. 244.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), for whom I have huge respect and affection. That brings me on to the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), and the amendments standing in his name.

Amendment 14 is on the issue of listing in primary legislation the competitions in scope of regulation. The approach in this Bill is consistent with similar sports legislation. The Opposition’s amendment would be likely to make this a hybrid Bill, which would mean years of delay, in effect killing off the Bill that they introduced and which was in their manifesto. We have been absolutely clear that the regulator will be operationally independent of Government. It will not exert any influence on the Football Association’s autonomy to govern the game.

The shadow Minister is obsessed with the publication of private communications with UEFA and FIFA. Despite his obsession and what I would say were his quite strong remarks about me at the Dispatch Box, did his Government publish private correspondence? No, of course they did not. I have been very clear throughout that UEFA and FIFA have no issue with the Bill as it is currently drafted.

Amendment 25 is simply scaremongering on the part of the Opposition. It is also curiously at odds with one of their other amendments—amendment 21. The football governance statement, which was also in the previous Government’s Bill, allows the Government of the day to set out their priorities for the regulator. This is no different from the strategic steers that the Government can and do give to other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, without undermining their operational independence. The statement will be published and laid before Parliament. Parliamentary approval is neither appropriate nor necessary, especially given the need to avoid political interference.

Amendments 24 and 28 on levy exemptions are simply not needed. The cost of regulation should not place an undue burden on clubs and costs should be transparent, as set out in clause 54. The regulator already has the power to exempt clubs from paying the levy through its levy rules. \p Lincoln Jopp: We had a long discussion in Committee about assessing how much this regulator was going to cost and how big it was going to be, but all the amendments we put forward were voted down. When will the Minister know that this thing has grown too big and costs too much? \p Stephanie Peacock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his service on the Bill Committee. He is right that we had a very good debate, and the impact assessment was of course approved by the previous Minister for Sport.

On amendment 18, the governance code on appointments is clear that political activity is not a bar to appointment. David Kogan has been found appointable for the role by a panel that included a senior independent panel member agreed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and has now been endorsed by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, adding a further layer of robustness. We will not set a new precedent with the football regulator by going further than the governance code on appointments, as the amendment proposes. More broadly, on amendments 19 and 20 on conflicts of interest, if the interests of a board or expert panel member might prejudice their ability to carry out their functions, the Bill already captures that as a conflict of interest.

On the owners and directors test, membership of a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000, and that offence is included in paragraph 2A of schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007. Such offences would already be considered when testing an individual’s fitness, so amendment 15 is not required.

On amendment 17 on the corporate governance code, reporting on equality, diversity and inclusion is a key part of good corporate governance. Clubs will simply have to state what they are doing on the issue.

On amendment 27 on club charities, I know from my area of Barnsley the brilliant work that the Barnsley FC Community Trust does. Through changes made in the other place, the corporate governance code gives a club the flexibility to detail what action it is taking to contribute to the economic and social wellbeing of the community. That can include the work of the club’s official charity or wider work in the community, so the amendment is not needed.

New clause 1 calls for a consultation on lifting the ban on consuming alcohol in view of the pitch. That is outside the scope of the Bill, which focuses on the sustainability of clubs and the game overall. I have raised the issue with the Home Office, which is the policy lead, as I committed to doing in Committee. \p Amanda Martin: Does the Minister agree with me and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) that we do need to look at alcohol sales, but that we need to do it with all stakeholders in the round—not just throw it in as a gimmick to this Bill, which is about finance and governance? \p Stephanie Peacock: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have reflected those comments to the relevant Home Office Minister, as I said.

I will turn to the amendments in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I thank him for his  constructive approach to the scrutiny of the legislation and for his party’s support. Several of his amendments are outside the scope of the regulator, but I am sure that he will put on record some important and valid points.

On free-to-air TV in new clause 3, the Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between giving access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. In domestic football, the present arrangements under the listed events regime have protected key moments such as the FA cup final, while ensuring that the Premier League, EFL and FA are able to raise billions of pounds annually, which is invested back into the pyramid. We all want to see more matches being televised free to air, but that must be balanced against investment, and not risk it.

On new clause 4 on the golden share, we expect that the regulator will welcome clubs taking any measure to improve fan engagement and protect club heritage, including a golden share, but it will not mandate them to do so. That brings me on to the issue of fan engagement, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in their amendments. Let me be really clear: the Government have strengthened fan engagement. The previous Government’s Bill required clubs to have a framework in place to ensure that they regularly meet and consult with a representative group of fans on key strategic matters at the club and other issues of importance to supporters. We have improved that by requiring fan engagement to continue even if a club enters into insolvency, and by introducing a requirement for consultation on ticket prices. We have not prescribed a fixed, one-size-fits-all approach to fan engagement. We of course expect the regulator to consult the Football Supporters’ Association where appropriate on fan issues, and I know the shadow regulator is already engaging with it. We do not want to place an unmanageable burden on clubs unnecessarily, which is why new clause 4 is not needed.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham has also tabled amendments on protections for home grounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has also raised and we have recently discussed. Home grounds are vital assets for clubs, which is why the Bill introduces protections to prevent inappropriate stadium sales and relocations. Clauses 46 and 48 require a club to get approval from the regulator before they sell or relocate their stadium.

On the sale of a home ground, let me first clarify that the legislation uses the term “disposal” rather than “sale” for technical legal reasons. For example, a club might sell a portion of the stadium, rather than the whole stadium. That is because a club might divest a shareholding, or transfer interest, in the stadium without it amounting to a full sale. Under clause 46, the regulator’s approval is needed in all instances for the sale of a stadium by a club. A sale can be approved only if it would not undermine the sustainability of the club. If a sale might mean that the club will have nowhere to play a few years down the line, that means the club may not be sustainable and the regulator is unlikely to approve the sale. \p Clive Betts: Does the Minister think that the regulator would take on board the views of fans as part of the process of looking at these matters and having to give approval in the normal way? \p Stephanie Peacock: Yes, absolutely, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further.

I will move on to the issue of player welfare. \p Tim Farron: The Minister might be just about to say the thing I was going to ask her about, as she has addressed a number of the amendments that my colleagues have tabled, which is the issue of footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions after their time. I am sure she was about to say something about that, in which case I apologise. As she will know, the proportion of footballers suffering from these conditions is significantly greater than the proportion of the general population. Many former footballers—many without the vast incomes that people assume footballers will have had in their careers—are left in a terrible situation, not supported by their clubs or the Premier League. What can the regulator do to get groups like Football Families for Justice the resources they need to support those who suffer having given their lives to the game? \p Stephanie Peacock: I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I know that he has worked very hard on this issue. I am hugely sympathetic to the issue of player welfare. It is important to say that the safety, welfare and wellbeing of everyone taking part in sport is absolutely paramount. \p Ian Lavery: Neurodegenerative disease is a real concern of many people in the sport. I am not sure whether it should be part of the governance Bill, despite the fact that it is going to be the biggest socialist nationalised Bill there has ever been in our lifetime. [Laughter.] It is a very serious issue, though. Does my hon. Friend agree that it needs to be looked at, and can she assure me that the Government will do so separately to the Bill, because of the urgency and the fact that people up and down this country at different levels of football are suffering greatly, mainly as a result of heading the ball? \p Stephanie Peacock: I am really grateful for that intervention. Again, I know that my hon. Friend has done a huge amount of work on this issue.

I have heard the calls from Members across the House, and indeed from retired footballers, and the Secretary of State and I recently met a small group of affected families and ex-footballers, including individuals associated with Football Families for Justice, to discuss player safety and welfare for those suffering with dementia. The Government are committed to looking further at this issue and supporting the families and football authorities to come together to address the lifelong consequences from concussion, as well as post-career mental health and financial crises. I am afraid that these measures are not within the tight regulatory scope of the Bill, although that does not mean that the Government are not aware and sympathetic to the calls being made on this issue, both in this House and from many former players and their families.

The Bill is focused on the financial sustainability of football clubs up and down the country. Too many fans have watched as their clubs make changes on which they have no say, from selling their stadium and changing club colours to, in the worst case, collapsing under inadequate ownership. This is unacceptable. It is devastating for fans and for local communities.

It is this Bill, delivered by this Labour Government, that will help to protect one of our great sporting assets and ensure that fans can focus on what is happening on the pitch, rather than off it. Today, Members across this House can vote with football fans, or they can vote against them. Today, we can deliver an independent football regulator. I commend this Bill to the House. \p Judith Cummins: I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. \p Max Wilkinson: We welcome this Bill, as did Members across the House until a few short months ago. [Laughter.] Indeed, some of those Members even came up with the idea. Like many in the Chamber today, we are disappointed that the consensus remains broken, after an apparent direction from the Leader of the Opposition, and that the Conservatives have chosen to turn their backs on the sustainability of football quite so dramatically—perhaps it is time to sack the manager. While their time in government left much to be desired, the Conservatives had the chance to claim a statement win today. After all, as I said, this Bill was their idea: Dame Tracey Crouch initiated the fan-led review, and the previous Government started this process.

Now, however, the Conservatives have spectacularly missed an open goal, much like Ronnie Rosenthal at Villa Park in 1992. If I was generous, I would say their performance on this Bill has been like Man United in 1998—throwing away a massive points lead only to finish with nothing. Instead, I fear for the shadow Minister that they are more like Spurs in 2016, somehow managing to finish third in a two-horse race—although, I suppose coming third is the sort of result the Conservatives need to get used to.

Throughout this process, we have been clear on our position: we are in favour of the principles of protecting the heritage of our national game, of greater financial sustainability, and of greater fan involvement in the game. We applaud the Government’s approach in delivering that, and we will support the Bill on Third Reading later today, because we remain consistent in our view.

None the less, we think that the Bill could go further. Let me begin with the issue of free-to-air coverage. In new clause 3, we are calling for key fixtures from the domestic football calendar to be made available on free-to-air television. This includes a selection of 10 premier league matches each season, the league cup final and the play-off finals in the championship, league one and league two. As a Charlton Athletic fan, the shadow Minister might have an interest in this one, because his team might make the play-offs one day. These would complement the existing free-to-air marquee events such as the FA cup, the World cup and the Euros. This proposal is neither about undermining private broadcasters, whose viewing figures sadly are already declining, nor about devaluing the broadcasting rights on which clubs rely, which are showing signs of plateauing, despite the addition of so many more live games to broadcast packages. Rather, this is an opportunity for broadcasters and the football leagues to innovate and to consider a more direct route to accessing fans without a paywall.

By introducing more free-to-air games, broadcasters could explore wider sponsorship opportunities tied to larger audiences, generate new appointment-to-view moments, and engage fans who are currently priced out of football not just in the stadium, but on television, too. This approach is already proving successful in other countries. For example, La Liga broadcasts one Spanish top-flight match per week free to air, helping to maintain widespread public engagement with the sport. With the rising cost of living and the growing number of subscription services required to watch live football—now totalling around £700 a year—making more matches available without a paywall would ensure the game remains accessible. \p Louie French: First, Charlton did reach the play-offs and we were promoted to the championship, so I am happy to correct the record for the hon. Member. But on the broadcasting issue, what cost analysis have the Liberal Democrats done on this issue, given that we know that the premier league and the EFL have already signed broadcast deals with the likes of Sky and others? What is the economic impact for those clubs and leagues? \p Max Wilkinson: A huge amount of money is already going around in football, and we know that when we get to contract negotiations with the broadcasters and the leagues, these things are chunked up into packages. And when the next contracts are up, this would be one of those packages. I do not see that there would need to be any massive economic impact. \p Christine Jardine: It might seem odd that I, as a Scot, want to intrude in this debate, but the health of English football is valuable to us in Scotland as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that if football is to continue on the current scale, it needs another generation to see it, to love it and to want to take part in it. The only really successful way of doing that is to make it free to air to every household in this country at some point every week. \p Max Wilkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. The point here is that Gen Z and people younger than those in the Chamber today consume sport and media in a very different way. [Interruption.] My pronunciation of Gen Z has been corrected. It turns out that I am out of touch. Those of us in the Chamber today grew up watching football as a 90-minute game on television, many of us on free to air. Today, youngsters will be watching social media clips on TikTok. They will be watching clips of people playing games on computers as well. If we are to get the next generation of fans involved, the easiest way to make sure that they are entertained and that they are engaging is by making football free to air. \p Louie French: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He suggests that there would not be a cost impact on the broadcasting rights, but the Liberal Democrat amendment states that a number of key matches would be required to shown on free-to-air TV channels every season. And as I highlighted in my previous intervention, those broadcasting deals are already in place. Does he not agree, therefore, that if Members were to vote for the Liberal Democrat amendment today, that would impact the broadcast deals already in play for the EFL and the premier league. \p Max Wilkinson: I do not believe that that necessarily has to be the case, but we will see what happens later on if the shadow Minister votes for our new clause. \p Tim Farron: In response to the shadow Minister’s point, having free-to-air coverage of premier league games puts the sport in the shop window, which is actually more likely to bring money in for non-free-to-air providers. We should also remember what football is all about. It is about community. A live televised football match is a communal event that everybody watches at the same time, and it brings the country together. Having games accessible on television every week would be good for the sport going forward, and it would mean that everyone can have access to football, not only those with money. \p Max Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would reflect that Members’ interest in this point suggests that we are on to something, as does the interest we have seen in the media today for the amendment.

Turning to fan representation, new clauses 4 and 5 would introduce a mandatory golden share for supporters groups to protect clubs’ assets. The Bill provides some protection against some of the most egregious actions of rogue football club owners, but the golden share concept in new clause 4 would add extra protection for clubs by giving a recognised supporters’ trust or equivalent democratic fan body a formal veto over decisions that could fundamentally alter the identity of their club. Such decisions would include relocating the home ground to somewhere outside the club’s home area, changing the club’s name, altering its primary colours or badge or entering competitions not sanctioned by the FA, the Premier League or the EFL.

The golden share concept was included in the recommendations of Dame Tracey Crouch’s fan-led review but appears to have been dropped somewhere along the way. We believe it is time to bring it off the bench, because supporters are more than just paying customers; they are the living, breathing heart of their clubs. They carry the traditions, culture and local identity that connects clubs to their communities. New clause 4 would help to increase accountability and democratic oversight in club ownership and governance. The need for it is obvious when we look at past events. The attempt to rebrand Hull City as Hull Tigers would have been vetoed by fans. A fan-held golden share would have blocked the move of Wimbledon football club to Milton Keynes. The golden share could have stopped Cardiff’s kit being changed from blue to red.

It is entirely right that investors and owners are part of football’s future, and they already have a massive stake in this, but it is just as important to protect the people who built the clubs and supported them through thick and thin. The golden share offers a fair balance of power that protects heritage and ensures that fans are not sidelined by reckless or profit-driven decision. That is at the heart of the aims of the Bill. \p Tim Farron: This is my third intervention and I have not yet mentioned Blackburn Rovers—I will now break that duck. Would the golden share allow fans to veto something like Blackburn Rovers’ outrageous decision to cease funding for their women’s football team? It meant that the team dropped from the championship  down to a league several layers below, simply because the owners—Venky’s—disgracefully decided that they no longer wanted to pay for a women’s team. \p Max Wilkinson: Women’s football is outside the scope of the Bill, but I believe that the golden share concept would cover that sort of decision. I agree that what has happened to the Blackburn Rovers women’s team is a total disgrace.

Turning to new clause 7, our national game is something we all take immense pride in. Football is one of the cornerstones of British culture, and it should never be used by individuals or regimes to cleanse their reputations or distract from human rights abuses. That is why we have tabled an amendment aimed at strengthening ownership rules for football clubs. Prospective owners and directors should face clear and enforceable tests that include human rights considerations. The tests would help to safeguard not only the values that underpin our national sport, but the liberal and democratic principles that we as a country and all of us in this House stand for.

It cannot be right that we welcome with open arms those who preside over oppressive regimes or are linked to activity that potentially breaches the values we hold so dear. If a football club’s owners are linked to actions that breach international law, can we really say that our national game or this country should be hosting them? We think not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 7.

On player welfare, which has been mentioned, amendment 3 would provide support for former professional footballers suffering from neurodegenerative conditions. While broken bones and torn ligaments can be fixed, the long-term effects of repeated head trauma often go unnoticed. Kevin Moore, Chris Nicholl, Nobby Stiles and others gave their best years to the sport, and it is a disgrace that many of them are now left facing devastating illnesses without the support that they need. Our amendment would require the football industry to allocate a small share of its considerable wealth to those affected. I also want to acknowledge the work of Michael Giles, John Stiles and the Football Families for Justice. That work must be recognised here today.

Finally, I turn to the issue of gambling in football, covered in new clause 2. Gambling-related harm is widespread and deeply damaging. Fans watching football today are bombarded with adverts encouraging betting—from TV commercials to shirt sponsorships. The influence of gambling in football has become overwhelming and dangerous. Gambling firms spend about £1.5 billion a year on advertising, much of it directed at football fans. It is unacceptable that football fans are having their game irrevocably linked to that trade. \p Iqbal Mohamed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? \p Max Wilkinson: I am afraid that I have to make some progress. The losses are not just financial; they lead to mental health crises, family breakdown and even suicide. Public Health England estimates that there are around 400 gambling-related suicides annually. We are not calling for a ban on gambling, but on gambling advertising in football. Football must sever the link between the game and gambling.

This Bill is an important step forward for our national game and we welcome it. The beautiful game needs its defenders, not just on the pitch but in Parliament. We must make the game more accessible to fans, protect club heritage and ensure democratic fan representation. We must prevent the sport from being exploited by corrupt regimes, support retired players suffering from neurological diseases and stand up to the gambling industry’s grip on our national sport. That is for the sake of the fans and for fairness, but more importantly, for the future of our national game. Our amendments would do all that and I hope that Members across the House, as well as Ministers, will consider them today and in future. As we are discussing new clause 1, I finish by saying that we will vote for it. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: Order. Starting with an immediate 6-minute time limit, I call Chris Evans. \p Chris Evans: I begin by declaring an interest: I am the biographer of Don Revie, the former Leeds and England manager, and the author of “The Football Battalions” about the footballers who went to war. I echo the tribute from the Front Bench to Diogo Jota, whose life was lost last week. He lit up the premier league for both Liverpool and Wolves, and we realise how short life is when we think about how he celebrated his wedding just 11 days earlier and about the three children he leaves behind. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for doing so well when he was the right hon. Member for Pudsey in constructing the Bill when in government. It is a shame that he does not agree with his former self.

The Bill was born out of the fan-led review, but when we talk about a Football Governance Bill, footballers need to be at the heart of it. It is players who quicken the pulse and it is they who provide the memories that we cherish forever, from childhood right through to now—the memories that we pass on to our children. I therefore speak in favour of new clause 13, which I have tabled, relating to a neurodegenerative care scheme and new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). Just as fans are to be at the heart of the review, the game would be nothing without the players. I broadly support the Bill, but it can be made better, and if it can be made better, we should do that.

The discourse surrounding the Bill is often about the independent football regulator being a safeguard for both fans and clubs, but it should also be a safeguard for ex-players and their families if neurological conditions or illnesses are most likely caused by their career in football. Unfortunately, the Bill neglects ex-players and families who are affected by conditions such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and motor neurone disease. They must be supported through the creation of the independent football regulator.

It is evident that the effects of a career in football are long-lasting. Footballers are four to five times more likely to die from neurodegenerative conditions, often  the result of persistently heading the ball. The independent football regulator must supervise and establish a scheme aimed at providing a high standard of care.

Players and their families dedicate themselves to the game and its dangers, and it is only fair that they are looked after in return. It should not be only their burden to bear, especially after contributing so much to our society. As has already been said, football generates £8 billion annually, contributes £4 billion in tax and supports almost 100,000 jobs. \p Debbie Abrahams: I agree with my hon. Friend—we hosted a Football Families for Justice event a few months ago. Most people are not aware that not all footballers make thousands and thousands of pounds a week. This is the least that we can do to ensure that the pleasure that they have given us is responded to when they find themselves afflicted with a neurological condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s. I hope that the Government will listen and support the new clause. \p Chris Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for her support. What brought this home to me about how much players were earning was when Johnny Giles, the great Leeds midfielder of the 1960s and ’70s, showed me his first contract from when he was playing for Manchester United: £18 in the winter and £12 in the summer. That sums up how much they were paid. A point that came up at that important meeting, which was attended by luminaries including Kevin Keegan, Chris Sutton, Paul Walsh and Barry Fry, was the complaints about the Professional Footballers Association. When I raised this on Second Reading, I was bombarded with emails from its public affairs arm saying, “Oh, you’ve got it all wrong,” but the question needs to be asked. It is the PFA’s members who are complaining about it and saying that it is not servicing them properly. It should be asking why that is happening. These are PFA members who have paid into its funds over the years, and if they are not being treated well, questions need to be answered.

According to new clause 13, the Secretary of State must set out the minimum requirements for the scheme, a timescale for the scheme’s establishment and arrangements and a timescale for periodic review of the scheme. Furthermore, all specified competition organisers should jointly operate, manage and fund the scheme through the formation of a joint co-ordinating committee. Any current or former player who has at any time been registered as a professional footballer would be eligible for the scheme.

To me, this goes beyond football. If research is discovered that helps dementia, Parkinson’s or motor neurone disease, the rest of society wins. This is something that football can lead and change society with. This scheme will provide crucial care and financial support to any eligible person who suffers from a neurodegenerative condition that is deemed to have been caused by or contributed to by playing football. A panel of independent experts must be appointed to determine whether a neurodegenerative condition of an eligible person has been caused by, or contributed to by, playing or training activities within the English football leagues. It will also determine the appropriate provision of care and financial support required in each case. The independent football  regulator must ensure that the joint co-ordinating committee acts on the panel’s determinations, to ensure that ex-players and their families get the support they need.

This is a matter of urgency. Ex-players who have given so much joy should be treated with dignity and respect, and supported when they need to be. This new clause would ensure that. I pay tribute to campaigners including Michael Giles, son of Johnny, and John Stiles, son of Nobby. They have campaigned with dignity and respect and with a quiet determination, and it is time we showed the same respect to them. Denying or ignoring the link between football and neurological conditions is no longer sufficient. Recently we lost Alan Peacock, who starred for Middlesbrough and Leeds in the 1960s. He can be added to the long list of names, including Jackie Charlton and Bobby Charlton, his brother, who died of dementia; Martin Peters; Ray Wilson; and, of course, Nobby Stiles. The connection between football and neurological conditions acquired later in life must be addressed in this Bill, and if it is not, it must be addressed somewhere else.

This Government, especially a Labour Government, should treat injuries caused by or contributed to by football like any other workplace or industrial injury, and that is what my new clause would ensure. We on this side are the party for workers, and regardless of the industry, it is our job to support and protect them, especially as their union, in their words, lets them down. Since football has contributed so much to our economy and, more personally, to fans’ happiness, it is only common decency to support players when they are in need. This cannot be ignored any longer. Not only must support be provided, but the independent football regulator must be there for them. \p Iqbal Mohamed: I rise today to speak to the new clauses in my name and to lend my support to several of the other new clauses. Some have already been spoken about by my hon. Friends across the House. New clause 6 is about financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud and about protecting players. New clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) has just spoken about, deals with neurodegenerative care schemes.

Football should never be a luxury. It should be a shared national experience, accessible to families, young people and lifelong fans, but more and more it is becoming a commodity. A game that was built by and for the working class is now priced out of reach for the very people who gave it life. If I wanted to attend the first Premier League game in August, I would be looking at paying over £200 for two tickets on the secondary market. That is before travel, food and all the rising living costs are factored in. Even in ordinary times, that is a huge sum and for most people, it is simply unaffordable. Football is becoming a luxury experience, not a communal one. Historically, football thrived because it was accessible. Its rise alongside the expansion of the railway network allowed working people to follow their teams home and away. It became more than just a sport; it became a pillar of community identity and pride.

Fans—the heartbeat of the sport—are being pushed to the margins. Our current ticketing system is pricing them out. That is why I have tabled new clause 8, which would introduce a duty on clubs and competition organisers to ensure fairer access and great transparency in ticket  sales, especially in reselling tickets when fans are not able to attend. We are seeing ticket prices skyrocket while secondary ticketing platforms exploit demand and rake in obscene profits. The new clause would compel clubs to monitor the secondary market, report harmful practices and offer resale channels to stop fans getting ripped off and scammed. Fans should know the real face value of a ticket and have a safe, fair way to buy and resell them—no more profiteering or shadowy resale platforms. The price of attending premier league games is beyond the means of most fans, even more so if they want to share that experience with family members.

I should declare an interest as a lifelong Liverpool fan, and I offer my condolences to the family of Diogo Jota and his brother who tragically died recently. While I may be biased in thinking that it is the greatest club in the world, I also say with pride that Liverpool has shown what fan-focused leadership looks like. The club recently froze ticket prices for the 2025-26 season following discussions with the supporters board. That model of engagement and sensitivity to supporters deserves recognition, but not every club takes that approach, and that is exactly the problem. We want to see this culture rolled out across the country, one where fans are not an afterthought but at the centre of decision making. My new clause would make that approach a requirement, not just a gesture of goodwill.

That leads me to my second proposal, new clause 14, which would introduce mandatory vetting of foreign financial investment in football. It is about protecting the soul of English football from the corrosive influence of dirty money. We have seen at first hand how vulnerable clubs struggling under massive debts become easy targets for opportunistic investors looking to launder their reputations or gain geopolitical influence. I have raised this before: sportswashing is now one of the most insidious trends in football. Where once the term might have brought to mind the 1936 Berlin Olympics or the 2015 Baku European games, today the UK is at the top of that list. That should shame us.

I repeat the example I gave in my speech on Second Reading of Abramovich’s ownership of Chelsea. While it was seen as a huge success for the club, his ties to the Russian state and his close relationship with Putin should have raised huge financial and ethical concerns, but these were overlooked. For years, he used our game to rebrand himself, shifting attention away from questions about the origins of his fortune, but it was only following the invasion of Ukraine that real action was enforced. That shows exactly why we need stronger safeguards to prevent that from happening again.

The new clause would empower the independent football regulator to block investment from funds linked to money laundering, criminal finance, human rights abuses or any breaches of UK or international law. That is the bare minimum. If Amnesty International or other watchdogs have flagged a state or source of funds for its abysmal human rights record, there should be red flags, not red carpets, for the potential owner. Let us be honest: fans sometimes embrace foreign investment out of desperation, but the independent football regulator should protect the game from nefarious funds and owners. This is not about bad actors; it is about a broken system. Club owners may not see the need for regulation. We are protecting not just finances but values. If this Bill and the independent regulator fail to  stop the abuse of our football institutions by criminal or oppressive regimes, they will have failed in their public duty. \p Several hon. Members: rose— \p Judith Cummins: I am imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I call Clive Betts. \p Clive Betts: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—not for the time limit but for calling me.

The Bill is crucial because football has failed to regulate itself. It is key to ensuring the sustainability of our great game. The first aspect of it that I really commend is the move to give the regulator powers to ensure a fairer redistribution of money throughout the football pyramid—it is clearly totally unfair that money is concentrated in a handful of clubs at the top while other clubs struggle at the bottom—and to remove the enormous cliff edge between the premier league and the championship. I thank the Secretary of State and the Sport Minister for listening to the concerns raised about the powers of the regulator with regard to the backstop. In improving the backstop in terms of scope and process during the Bill’s passage, they have listened and acted, which is welcome indeed.

The other aspect of the Bill that addresses sustainability is that it will now give the regulator powers to deal with bad owners—not just at first instance when they are buying the club, but once they are in charge of it. I thank the Minister for writing to me and clearly setting out the powers that the regulator will have to deal with owners who no longer seem able to run a club properly, by intervening and taking responsibility for the club away from them. It would be helpful to put that letter in the public domain and the Library. \p Louise Haigh: Despite being a lifelong Barnsley supporter, I am still grateful to my hon. Friend for hosting the Sheffield Wednesday supporters’ trust yesterday and for his leadership on this issue. What was reflected back to us by the supporters’ trust is how unfair the current situation is. Clubs—and therefore the fans—are punished when irresponsible owners like the current owner of Sheffield Wednesday, Chansiri, behave appallingly and do not put the fans first. \p Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will turn in a second to what the EFL can do now.

For all that the Minister has been helpful in explaining what the regulator’s powers will be, the problem is that we are left in the meantime without a regulator and doubts about what the EFL can do in that regard. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) and for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) will be very much involved with the Reading supporters’ trust and can tell us all the problems that they have experienced. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) has similar problems with her club. There have been similar problems for Derby and its fans, as hon. Friends will know, and the Secretary of State will know about Wigan.

The situation at Sheffield Wednesday is dire. The owner has failed to pay wages for three months over the course of this year. That affects not just the players—some of whom may be well off, while others are not; the administrative staff, clerks and all those people have not been paid for two months in some cases. The owner has not paid His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on two occasions. It is clear that he is simply running out of money.

What actions can the EFL take? We welcome the investigation that it is now conducting into what is going on at Hillsborough, but it is clear that although Chansiri was funding the club to the tune of about £10 million a year, he has now run out of money. Rob Brookes of the Wednesday supporters’ trust has done a brilliant analysis of Chansiri’s companies in Thailand, which are, by and large, now losing money. He is not able to fund the club, so where has the money been coming from to keep it going for the past two or three years? Has he borrowed it? If so, who has he borrowed it from? What are the conditions on that borrowing? Are the people who lent him the money now effectively running the club and telling Chansiri that he cannot sell it? He has turned down many approaches to sell the club and is demanding ridiculous prices for it. Has the money been borrowed from reputable sources? I do not know; I am not making an accusation. The only person who can clarify this awful situation is Mr Chansiri himself, but he will not comment on it.

We welcome the EFL investigation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) says, we want the EFL to find out what is happening, and to be transparent and open about what it knew about the whole issue. Why, when Chansiri produced a business plan in March, did the EFL accept it? How far did it question that plan? Having given the EFL a business plan saying that he was financially sustainable, he failed to pay wages hours later. He had two five-hour engagements with the fans and never once mentioned his problems funding the club.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley said, what we do not want is for the EFL to come in and its only actions be to punish the club with transfer embargoes and points deductions to the point where a sustainable sale to someone else is not possible. I say to the EFL: you are the only hope we have until the regulator comes in, so please work with the fans’ trust and others to find the best way forward. Tell us what you knew and what you know now, and expose what Chansiri has been doing, because it is an absolute disgrace that a club of Sheffield Wednesday’s stature should be reduced to this situation.

We have heard today that, because of the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, Sheffield city council has issued a directive that unless work is done on the north stand roof, it will close part of the ground come the start of the season, but the club has known about that for three years. This is an appalling situation. I ask the Minister and the Secretary of State to talk to the EFL about how far they can work with them to save the situation.

I welcome the Minister for Sport’s letters to me, the commitment to fan engagement and the commitment on the FSA’s role going forward, but the regulator must have the powers to intervene if it feels that external   competitions such as the club world cup interfere with our domestic competitions. I thank her very much for her engagement right through this process. \p Bobby Dean: I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), specifically new clauses 3 and 4.

I will start by outlining why these fan-centric measures are important to this particular fan and why football is important to me. Football has been the most constant thing in my life. When I was a young boy, my uncle called me Statto because I used to study Teletext for every bit of football information I could get—the league tables, the top scorers, all the transfer news—and relay it to my family until I annoyed the hell out of all of them. Football was also the central bond with my grandparent, or Pops, as I used to know him—so much so that when he passed, I took his ashes down the Tottenham High Road and laid them in the foundations of the new Tottenham Hotspur stadium. Football is probably the most frequent conversation I have with my dad and the thing that glues all my friendship networks together.

I have to confess that being a politician was not my first career choice. Just like every young boy, I thought I could be a footballer. Despite hours of effort after school every day, I was never going to be good enough. But I never gave up; I played football throughout my university years and formed many friendships that way. After that, we did not want to stop, so we set up an alumni football club together and carried on. Eventually, I joined Carshalton football club, whose club tie I am wearing today, and I still play on a Saturday, except for the weekends when I am injured. Those moments in Beddington park playing for Carshalton football club are some of the only moments when I get to switch off from all this—my teammates would probably say that I also switch off too much on a Saturday when the winger runs past me!

Then there is the watching of football—the lunacy of me continuing to watch. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker: the journey from Carshalton to Tottenham and back on a rainy Tuesday night is brutal, particularly when we lose the number of games that Tottenham lost this year. Yet in the same season when I have had all that misery, I had one night in Bilbao last month that was probably one of the best nights of my life. Isn’t that just football—misery and sublime nights like that all in one go?

The centrality of football to people’s lives is what makes this Bill so important. People have felt in recent years that the game has drifted away from them, and some people’s reaction is to say, “That’s the way it is.” I am glad that, through the Bill, the Government are saying that we will not be resigned to that fact—we are going to fight, stop that drift and bring it closer to fans again.

That brings me to new clause 4, which is about the golden share. This is particularly important because it would lock in the fans’ voice via democratically elected organisations. That would mean that clubs would not be able to simply pay lip service to the element of consultation with fans; there would be real power for the fans, with their presence inside the clubs. Of course, this does not go anywhere near as far as other countries, like Germany with the Bundesliga, but it is an important protection.

We spoke at length earlier about new clause 3 and the free-to-air element. I understand why there is a bit of controversy around that and why the Secretary of State will say that the current listings system works well. But who do it work well for? It certainly works well for the premier league, but I am not sure whether it works well for all fans. The new clause would not go as far as la liga, which broadcasts a game every single week. Let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about 10 games out of 760 available—that would be 1% of games. I do not think that would destroy the premier league’s product, but it would make games so much more accessible to the next generation of fans. The premier league is a global attraction, but it is also England’s product, and English fans should be able to watch those games.

There are other elements of the Bill that I could go on to support, but I am short on time, so I will just express my support for new clause 1, which is important. I end with this quote from a famous Tottenham manager, Bill Nicholson:

“We must always consider our supporters, for without them there would be no professional football. It would be better to have more fans watching football the way they like it played, rather than have a few fans watching football the way we would like it played.”

Those are important words that we should all reflect on when voting today. \p Sally Jameson: It is a real pleasure to speak in support of the Bill. We stood on a manifesto that promised to establish an independent regulator to ensure financial sustainability for football clubs in England. Today we will be delivering on that promise for football fans across the country, regardless of the club they support; of course, Doncaster Rovers are the only team worth noting.

Doncaster Rovers unite the community in my constituency and hold a special place in all our hearts. In fact, local artist Martin Black will soon release a song for charity called “This is my city”, which is about community spirit and the hometown pride that stems from supporting your local team. It encapsulates what grassroots football really means.

The Government recognise the importance of fans in the football industry and are putting them at the heart of the game once more. As we have heard, fans should never risk losing their beloved club because of financial instability stemming from mismanagement and reckless spending. However, I would like to highlight the need to support football players from all leagues after their careers.

John Stiles, son of the 1966 legend Nobby Stiles, is one of my constituents. I first met John in one of my earliest surgeries—not long after I was elected—to discuss his involvement with the Football Families for Justice campaign, which, as we have heard, focuses on supporting ex-footballers and their families when they face devastating neurodegenerative disease as a result of their football careers. I pay tribute to John for all the work he has done on the campaign; he has really been a leader in the area.

Research shows that ex-footballers are four or five times more likely to suffer from Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, motor neurone disease and other similar diseases. Unfortunately, that was the case for Nobby. The PFA has been mentioned, so for the sake of time I will not go  into it any further, but it is saddening that an industry with such a vast amount of wealth offers so little support to ex-footballers when they face unforeseen health impacts resulting from their time on the pitch.

I understand that the Bill’s scope means that some of the suggested changes are not currently in the legislation, but I ask the Minister and the Department to give further thought to the adequacy of support provided to ex-footballers and their families when they face neurodegenerative diseases. As has been said, not all footballers are earning millions of pounds every year; in fact, many earn very little and have relatively short careers in the context of their lives.

The football industry is carried on the skill and sacrifice of its players as well as its fans. It is disappointing that the industry does not really recognise that. If even only a small proportion of wealth in the industry was made more easily accessible to players and supported ex-professionals, that would go a long way to delivering justice for those players and their loved ones. I hope to continue my engagement with the Minister and the Department on this matter. However, I welcome this Bill and the fact that it will ensure a consistent approach in how clubs are run by implementing a club licensing regime and tackling rogue owners and directors. I am pleased that the Bill has the support of Club Doncaster in my constituency. On its behalf, I remind the Minister of the importance of ensuring that the regulator provides objective and competent oversight of the football governance model. Clubs and their system deserve financial sustainability to protect the heritage of English football.

Football is part of our culture and history. With the recent and well-deserved promotion of Donny Rovers, I am pleased that this Government are taking steps to protect its legacy and its future. \p John Whitby: I rise to support new clause 13 and amendment 29 on behalf of one of my constituents, the former Arsenal and Leeds goalkeeper John Lukic. I am grateful to John for bringing to my attention the growing number of ex-players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a form of dementia caused by repeatedly heading the ball.

Research shows that retired footballers are more than three times more likely to suffer from dementia than the general population. CTE is a progressive and irreversible disease that leaves individuals suffering from memory loss and unable to carry out basic day-to-day activities. As a result, those around them often become their carers and have to endure watching their loved ones gradually lose their memories and independence. The modern game is awash with money; the Premier League’s latest TV deal is worth £6.7 billion. Despite the huge sums of money available, only £1 million has to date been committed to supporting players suffering from neurodegenerative diseases.

As we have already heard a few times, the situation has left former players, such as world cup winner Nobby Stiles, having to sell their medals to fund their care. While footballers have always been paid comparatively well, the players from the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s earned nothing like the sums that modern stars are paid, and their careers were short. It is worth highlighting that  this issue may not go away: although footballs are not as heavy as they used to be, they now travel faster, meaning that the overall impact of heading a ball can be similar.

I therefore support these measures in solidarity with Football Families for Justice, which I join in calling for legislation to be enacted that will ensure competition organisers are required to provide funding towards a neurodegenerative care scheme. Unfortunately, unless competition organisers are made to do it, the belief is that they will not. Just as the Football Governance Bill seeks to protect fans from profit-driven ventures such as the creation of new super leagues, it is right that the Bill should also protect the players who gave so much to make the game what it is.

I am encouraged by what the Minister has said on this matter. We rightly hear that football is nothing without the fans, but the fans turn out only for the players. Football needs to support them. \p Clive Efford: I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), on bringing the Bill to this point. I also congratulate them on listening to arguments about how we treat the vast resources that come in through TV deals and distribute them throughout the football pyramid, particularly in giving the regulator powers over parachute payments, if he deems it necessary—I sincerely hope he will—if we do not get an agreement between the English Football League and the Premier League. Those payments really distort competition, particularly in the championship. That needed to be addressed in this Bill, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on doing that.

I support the new clause and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). They deal with how we identify the people who really began this journey: the sports fans. This started with the super league and the fans’ reaction to it. They are determined to stop clubs from breaking away from the premier league and forming a super league with other clubs from across the globe. The reaction of fans shocked the Conservative Government at the time into action; they could not really resist. The power of fans has brought us to this point. We need to understand how we can identify fans—bona fide supporters of a club—and consult them on how we regulate the game going forwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East is attempting to do that through some of his amendments.

My hon. Friend has identified another very important factor, which is how we prevent assets being attractive to those people who look to take over a club, not because they are interested in football in any way but because they see assets of value from which they can make money. By running clubs into the ground, they seek to make a profit from those assets. Through the “asset of community value” powers or something similar, my hon. Friend is trying to prevent that from happening. If his amendments are not accepted or voted on tonight, I would certainly commend them to the regulator, who I hope will take heed of what my hon. Friend is attempting to achieve.

One other amendment I added my name to is new clause 1, because I think the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), is on  to something. Why do we treat other sports differently from football—why is football singled out? Well, I think we know the story of that, but it has been a long time since the issue of alcohol at football grounds has been looked at. There is nothing unreasonable about asking clubs and the football community to look at whether we can relax those rules in certain circumstances, so that where clubs want to do it, they can do it, and should do so in partnership with their fans. A review of that issue would not be a bad thing at all.

This Bill is a giant leap forward for football in this country. I commend my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench for what they have achieved, and I wish the Bill a fair wind. \p Connor Naismith: It is an immense privilege to rise once again to support this important Bill during its passage through Parliament. I want to draw particular attention to amendments 10 and 11, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). Those amendments would require a club’s home ground to be designated as an asset of community value as part of its operating licence. I welcome the remarks made by the Minister during her opening speech about the safeguards that are already in the Bill to protect home grounds.

A club’s stadium is more than its stands, plastic seats, some turf and the woodwork. It has a spirit; it is part of the club’s identity. It has memories—highs and lows—soaked up in its walls. We must protect these important assets for the communities they mean so much to. In many cases, a club’s stadium is inherently bound up with the place that surrounds it, and can form a link between the sport and the identity of the town or city it sits in. Crewe Alexandra’s home ground, the Mornflake stadium, is named after an iconic historic local milling business and producer of breakfast foods founded in 1675, and is overlooked by the railway lines that gave birth to the town. Similarly, Nantwich Town FC’s stadium sits on the banks of the River Weaver, which literally connects the club to the town centre and beyond.

I strongly believe that we can and should go further to strengthen the links between clubs and communities, which is why I was delighted recently to join Stuart Price, Trevor Griffiths and Aaron Lewis on the fantastic “Railwaymen” podcast, a dedicated fans’ podcast for Crewe Alexandra FC. We discussed exactly how we might strengthen those links, working together in partnership. I am delighted to be working closely with the podcast and other key stakeholders in the town to commission a mural to the club, which could act as a bridge between the stadium and the town centre. Although it is early days for that project, I extend an early invitation to visit to the Secretary of State and the Minister—who has only just been in my constituency to open a boxing gym, but is always welcome to come back—if we are successful in commissioning that mural.

Finally, it is a great shame that the Conservative party and Reform have thus far joined forces to try to frustrate the progress of this Bill. As the shadow Minister is indicating, Reform Members are once again not even in the Chamber, although I have to say that there are not many Members on the Conservative Benches either. Our game needs an independent football regulator, the Football League needs it, and I believe the Premier League needs it too.

If Opposition Members are in any doubt, I encourage them to read the case for an independent football regulator written by Crewe Alexandra supporter Tom Kural. It sets out in illuminating clarity why this change in the law is needed, and why Members from all parts of the House should be in no doubt that fans in my constituency, and I am sure in theirs, want this change. Before Opposition Members walk through the Lobby tonight, I encourage them to think carefully about what fans like Tom in their constituencies think. \p Baggy Shanker: As someone born and raised in Derby, I know how deeply our football club runs through the heart of our city. Derby County is more than just a team; it represents our identity, our pride and the strength of our community. However, like so many in this House, I also know what it feels like when that identity is put at risk. In 2021, Derby County entered administration. The confusion and lack of transparency that followed made it much harder for everybody involved, including those of us working behind the scenes to help secure the club’s future. It was only thanks to the extraordinary actions of local man and lifelong fan, David Clowes, that the club was saved.

One example that highlights the need for stronger oversight is the attempted takeover of Derby County by Chris Kirchner. Despite initial approval, it became clear that Kirchner was not a fit and proper person to run the club. His financial shortcomings and failure to meet deadlines led to the takeover attempt collapsing. Later, Kirchner was convicted of fraud-related charges in the US over his business dealings and sentenced to 20 years in prison. That is why I welcome the Football Governance Bill, which offers the protections that Derby County and so many other clubs across the EFL need. \p Richard Quigley: While the facial expressions of Opposition Members are worth an intervention all on their own, does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill provides stronger financial oversight and increased fan involvement, promotes equity and inclusion, protects club heritage, and increases transparency and accountability? The reason the Opposition oppose it is because those are alien concepts to them. \p Baggy Shanker: Absolutely, the faces of Opposition Members say it all. I will talk a little more about the content of the shadow Minister’s speech in a second.

The EFL has needed this Bill, and it wants this Bill. It will establish the independent football regulator, introduce proper financial oversight and finally require clubs to engage seriously with the fans who give the clubs their life. We do not need to look far to see that the problems are ongoing. They are happening in front of our eyes. My own chief of staff is a devoted Sheffield Wednesday fan and is deeply troubled by the instability and uncertainty surrounding her club. Like so many fans, she sees an owner who clearly does not have the resources required to run the club appropriately. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) for the work he has done and continues to do to stand up for fans and the future of their beloved Sheffield Wednesday.

This Bill is not just a policy proposal, but a vital step towards a fairer and more sustainable future for our national game. Clubs in the EFL will lose around  £450 million this season alone. The level of instability is not just damaging, but dangerous. We have already seen what happens when things go wrong, from Bury to Bolton to Reading. The pattern is clear and it cannot be allowed to continue. The EFL wants this Bill. Most clubs across the English leagues support this Bill. Most importantly, fans want this Bill. I genuinely ask why the Conservatives do not.

What makes it even more frustrating is the political opportunism we are seeing. When in government, the Conservative party brought forward an almost identical Bill to the one we are debating today. Now in opposition, they seem prepared to vote against the Bill not because the policy has changed, but because the politics have changed. That is not leadership; that is putting party before the future of our clubs and the communities that they serve.

The truth is that there is more than enough money in English football to sustain the entire pyramid. The problem is how that money is distributed. Last year, 25 clubs received 92% of the game’s revenue, while 67 other clubs were left to fight over the remaining 8%. The new regulator will have the tools to help fix that and to ensure that clubs are run properly, sustainably and in the best interests of the people they represent. This Bill is a chance to safeguard the heritage, the future and the very soul of English football. I support it proudly on behalf of Derby, and I urge colleagues across the House to do the same. Let us protect the game before it is too late. \p Yuan Yang: Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak today with a sense of relief, because Reading football club has finally been sold. I was one of thousands in the stadium in my constituency during the May bank holiday weekend when we heard that the sale had finally gone through. The relief and joy in the crowd were palpable, and we all chanted, “We’ve got our Reading back.” It was the last game of the season, and because the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is present on the Front Bench, I will not mention the score. As well as the relief about the sale, however, I share fans’ deep frustration, because we should never have had to fight so hard to save our club. I am so glad to welcome a number of Reading fans who are sitting in the Gallery, having travelled to Parliament to witness this historic piece of legislation.

Just a few short months ago, our club—one of the oldest in English football—was on the brink of expulsion from the English football league. Its decline was driven by governance failure, absentee ownership and the ultimate toothlessness of the existing regulation. We were so close to losing our club, not just to relegation but to administration or even insolvency. In the worst weeks, it seemed that I was calling the EFL and prospective bidders and other stakeholders almost every other day trying to find a solution. Thankfully, our club was finally sold, but it could so easily have gone the other way—and for too many clubs, such as Bury and Macclesfield, it has gone the other way.

More than 50 clubs in the top six tiers of the English men’s game have gone into administration since 1992, which shows that the game is in deep need of repair and of independent regulation. Even today clubs such as Sheffield Wednesday suffer from similar issues, and I pay tribute to all my Labour colleagues in that city who are fighting so hard for their club, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and many other Members across the House.

Yet it should not be up to MPs and fans to mount rescue campaigns. Fans should not be the ones organising petitions, staging protests or becoming forensic accountants to hold the owners to account. Yet Reading fans did everything, from marching in the streets to working with Members from across the House. Over 10,000 fans signed my petition to hold an inquiry into Reading’s absent owners, and many came to watch the Westminster Hall debate that I led in March. I even had the assistance of fans when poring over the complex corporate structure of Reading football club in the hope of finding a legal solution. Meanwhile, I relentlessly pestered Ministers, spoke to the EFL, and met the shadow regulator.

I want to say a big thank you to the Sell Before We Dai campaign, the Supporters Trust at Reading, the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, and all the MPs from all parties who worked alongside us. The burden placed on supporters by all this was enormous, emotionally, financially and physically. Fans should not have to go through this: we need stronger and smarter regulation.

As I have said before, any regulator must pass the Reading test. That means having the power to disqualify unfit owners and, crucially, to force a sale when a club’s future is at risk. I thank the Minister for her constructive and serious engagement throughout the Committee consideration. I was especially glad to hear her strong responses to the amendments tabled in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the regulator’s powers to force divestment from unsuitable owners, and, having read her on-the-record responses, I am grateful for her clarification. She explained, for instance, that the regulator may appoint an interim officer to assist a club to operate effectively in the owner’s absence; may require a club to change its constitution if that is the most appropriate way to secure an unsuitable owner’s removal; and may, in the most extreme cases, force a rogue owner to divest at no minimum price, directing that owner to take no part in the running of the club in the meantime. I hope that the Minister will reaffirm those points in her winding-up speech today, to make it clear to all that the Bill does pass the Reading test.

This Bill has been a long time coming, and I thank everyone who worked on it, including those in the previous Government under the leadership of Dame Tracey Crouch and her fan-led review, as well as the previous Secretary of State and Minister for Sport. I am incredibly relieved that the Bill is here, and it reflects the broad cross-society consensus, and what was until very recently a cross-party consensus, that we need this regulation, which is sorely lacking from the game. \p Sean Woodcock: My hon. Friend is making a great speech. Apparently, 80% of fans support this Bill, but recent polling had the Conservative party   at 16%. Does she agree that these facts alone should give Conservative Front Benchers pause for thought before they oppose the Bill? \p Yuan Yang: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am very surprised to see Conservative Front Benchers whipping their colleagues to oppose a Bill that they had previously introduced in part and supported. We had built a cross-society consensus because of the work of Dame Tracey and many others like her, and we should respect that work and the importance of regulating football so that it is financially sustainable. \p Louie French: Anyone who has read the fan-led review will know that it ultimately suggests that football should be given back to the FA and the leagues themselves. Our position is to accelerate that now, rather than appoint a Labour regulator. \p Yuan Yang: The approach of the Conservative party here and in the Lords has been to delay this Bill and any progress made on regulation for far too many months, during which my club has struggled to go on without any independent regulation. I would like to see some reflection from Conservative Front Benchers about what that means not just for Reading, but for many clubs that are waiting for the regulator to come in.

Let Reading be one of the last clubs that have to fight this hard to survive, and let this Bill be the turning point. Let us do what the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), has said: let us crack on with this Bill. \p Lizzi Collinge: I had hoped to come to the House today with a spring in my step, having seen the sale of Morecambe FC go through. Instead, Morecambe FC and our town have been put through hell over the past week or so, and we still cannot see the end of it. More than 10 days ago, the EFL approved a buyer, Panjab Warriors, which is ready and willing to buy. Clearance has been granted, and over 14 months-worth of funds—a significant amount—have already been pumped into the football club by the new buyer.

The current owner, Jason Whittingham—operating as the Bond Group—said he was ready to sell, but instead of getting the deal done, he has, for whatever reason, stalled. He has delayed and given excuses, and he has tried to dismiss the board. In fact, it is only through the good intentions of the local board members, and the responsibility that they feel towards Morecambe, that they returned to try to facilitate the sale. But yet again, Jason stalled, so now the board has gone again.

Panjab Warriors, which has already poured a lot of money into the club, has made it clear that everything is ready from its end, but the sale has still not been completed. Most distressingly, staff and players have not been paid their full wages. I have received emails from constituents who work for the club and who are desperately worried about how they will pay their bills. Our local citizens advice bureau and food bank have had to step in, because that is what we do in Morecambe: we look after our own. Tomorrow, the club is due to pay £40,000 in VAT. Unless the sale goes through, there is no way the club can meet this obligation.

Until now, I have restrained myself from using the full extent of parliamentary privilege in this matter, because my focus has been on getting the sale done. I have held my tongue while the EFL went through its due diligence process, and I have implored Jason Whittingham directly to just get on with the sale. But my restraint has not produced the progress that I had hoped for, so I now feel duty bound to use parliamentary privilege to lay out what I see.

I suspect that Jason Whittingham has built a house of cards, and it is now falling down around his ears. There is mention of further unspecified investors, even at this final stage, and there is a suspicion that the club is being used to leverage his personal financial situation. Morecambe FC is being held hostage, and it breaks my heart. Morecambe FC is the cornerstone of our community, and what is happening in Morecambe shows exactly why this Bill is needed. The likes of Jason Whittingham should never have been allowed to buy a football club.

Last week, the Secretary of State answered a question in this House about the sale, and I thank her and the Minister for Sport for all their support behind the scenes in dealing with this unfolding disaster. This Labour Government have stood by my community and, frankly, I am baffled as to why the Conservatives are opposing this Bill. I know what a football club means to a town such as Morecambe. This Bill is a crucial step to stopping other towns like Morecambe going through this heartache. I urge Members across the House to please support this Bill, and I say to Jason, “Come on, sign the damn paperwork!” \p Alex Sobel: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also associate myself with the tribute from my hon. Friend the Minister after the tragic death of Diogo Jota. My son is a Liverpool fan, and his generation of Liverpool fans regarded him as one of the finest players in the club, so it is very sad news for them.

I rise to speak to my two amendments to the Bill: amendment 12 and the linked new clause 6. I also support new clause 13, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans).

This is a great Bill that will improve football and the financial stability of clubs, but I want to raise the failings of the great game of football with regard to the financial wellbeing of players. These amendments seek to address ongoing financial grooming and disregard for player welfare in the football industry. I believe this is an historic opportunity to reform football governance in England for the long-term good of clubs, supporters and players. However, to leave out the wellbeing, protection and long-term security of players—the very people who drive the game, whom we see week in and week out, in the stands and on television, and who are the beating heart of football—would be a fundamental mistake.

I have written a letter to the Secretary of State, supported by over a dozen Members of Parliament and 319 current and former professional players, coaches and managers across the game, including many legends of the game. Many of those have been victims of financial grooming and fraud. They have written, alongside me and other Members, to express our strong support for the introduction of an independent football regulator, and to urge that player welfare be included in the regulator’s remit.

The current system is failing too many players. Issues affecting player welfare span financial exploitation and mental health problems to retirement transition and dementia. The support system is fragmented, opaque and often reactive at best. Despite the Professional Footballers’ Association mandate, too many players feel unsupported, unprotected or unheard.

These are not just historic problems; they are happening now. This is not simply a matter of correcting the past. New forms of financial exploitation are appearing today, particularly through digital platforms and sophisticated forms of financial exploitation and grooming. Some of the individuals involved remain active in football, and operate unchecked and outside meaningful oversight. Players, especially younger ones, continue to face avoidable risks, such as predatory financial advice and abuses, post-career mental health problems and financial crises, and in many cases the lifelong consequences of concussion.

This is a rare and timely legislative moment. The Football Governance Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to embed protections for everyone in the game—not just clubs and investors, but players too. Including player welfare in the regulator’s scope would ensure that minimum standards, transparency and accountability are applied across football. A regulated environment would provide strong co-ordination between the clubs, the premier league, the EFL, the PFA, the FA, the League Managers Association, and other associated organisations, ultimately benefiting all parties. Football must be more than financially sustainable; it must also be ethically sound. That means protecting the health, dignity, welfare and future of the players who give everything to the sport. I urge the Government to ensure that player welfare is not overlooked as this important legislation moves forward.

My amendment 12 seeks to safeguard the current and former players involved in English football who have been victims of financial abuse, mismanagement or fraud, or who are at risk of becoming victims of financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud. My new clause 6 seeks to embed measures aimed at achieving the financial abuse, mismanagement and fraud objective. Unfortunately, we see financial abuse and grooming across the sports, music, media and cultural industries; football is not unique. However, this is a unique opportunity for the regulation of football that could lead as an example for other areas.

I want to finish by saying that this is classist abuse of young and budding talent. \p Lizzi Collinge: My hon. Friend talks about the class system. It is telling that in other countries that perhaps have less class-based societies, football is recognised as culture. Does he agree that football should be recognised in this country on a par with other cultural opportunities such as the theatre and opera? \p Alex Sobel: I absolutely do. As a Leeds United fan, I know that we definitely cross the spectrum from sport to culture—everybody has probably seen “The Damned United”. In a country such as Spain, football goes across the cultural spectrum, but the ownership of clubs  is also with the fans and not with oligarchs—as the former Chelsea owner was—or others. There is a different cultural aspect to it in other European countries.

As I was saying, this is classist abuse of young and budding talent that exploits their lives for the benefit of financially high-powered middlemen. Labour’s driving mission is to protect working people against exploitation. Let us include football players in our party’s founding mission and give them the protections they deserve. \p Jim Dickson: It is a pleasure to speak once again on this important Bill. I happily declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Selhurst Park and long-term fan of Crystal Palace. I am still basking in the glory of our Wembley triumph in May. I promise to stop talking about it soon, but I hope to milk it for another couple of months if I can.

This hugely overdue Bill has wide support from fans and communities across our country, as evidenced by its adoption of the key recommendations of the 2021 fan-led review. The central insight of the review was that, as we all know, what is essentially true about football is that it is not like any other industry and cannot be treated as such. Football clubs are more than just local businesses. Across our country, they sit at the heart of our communities, as Dartford football club does in my constituency. They are anchor institutions, culturally and economically, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support the Bill to put in place a new set of rules to protect clubs, empower fans and keep clubs where they belong: at the heart of our communities.

For that reason, it was a privilege to serve on the Bill Committee—the third of my first year in this place; I hesitate to claim that it was a parliamentary hat trick. What set that Committee apart was the Opposition’s baffling approach to the legislation, as we can see on the amendment paper today. We were told on the Committee’s first day that the reason the Conservative party was against the Bill, despite having introduced it in the last Parliament, was that despite it being close in spirit and letter to the previous version, it now represented a clear case of over-regulation, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

In the sitting days that followed, a blizzard of amendments was visited on the Committee by the Opposition, the majority of which increased the powers, scope and responsibilities of the regulator. For instance, there was an amendment to investigate and possibly cap agents’ fees, which I notice has not returned on Report, and one on alcohol in football grounds, which has returned as new clause 1, as well as a range of other matters. \p Chris Evans: Does my hon. Friend not think it is a bit rich of the Opposition, given the problems they had in the 1980s when they did not stamp out hooliganism and instead thought that the way forward was to pen fans in behind electrified fences and even to introduce ID cards, to claim that they are now standing up for football fans? \p Jim Dickson: I do think that the Conservative Government’s attitude in the 1980s was to treat football fans as less than human. I would not wish to say that Opposition Members are not football fans, but the empty terraces on their side of the Chamber bespeak a lack of interest in the Bill.

The Opposition’s amendments that are designed to increase the scope and responsibility of the regulator would also increase the cost of the regulator to clubs, which was another of the Opposition’s complaints. They were at pains to try to point out that the regulator will cost fans dear, but their amendments would increase that cost. What we need, and what the Bill provides, is an agile and lean independent regulator whose efforts cannot be diverted from the key objective, which is to create a financially sustainable football pyramid that is responsive to fans.

I will touch briefly on a couple of the other amendments tabled for discussion today. I am sympathetic to the aims of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), and I echo others’ comments that the approach of the hon. Gentleman and his party to the Bill has been incredibly constructive, in contrast with that of the official Opposition. New clause 3 would set out in legislation a requirement for all these different matches to be free to air. While I am sympathetic to that, I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause—or indeed anything specifying such a thing on the statute books—is wise, because the Bill’s intention is not to get involved in commercial deals. However, I would like to see more top-class football on free-to-air television in order to give young fans the chance to watch more than just highlights on video or social media.

On amendments 10 and 11, I must confess strong agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and what he is seeking to achieve. The separation of club and home grounds, both past and present, as we see with Sheffield Wednesday—a case that I know that is very dear to my hon. Friend’s heart—invariably ends in serious jeopardy for the club. As he said, it invites speculators to treat grounds as just another asset, rather than something central to their communities, and, apart from anything else, it causes major problems when clubs change hands. It is an issue that needs to be addressed.

I also agree with the points my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East made in Committee about wanting the state of the game report, which the regulator will have to produce, to be brought forward as soon as possible so that its analysis can be used to broker a financial distribution deal across the pyramid at the earliest opportunity.

In our manifesto ahead of last year’s election, Labour said that we were committed to making Britain the best possible place in the world to be a football supporter. The Bill delivers this commitment for a sustainable game, putting clubs at the centre of our communities and fans at the heart of our game. \p Sean Woodcock: It is a privilege to have the chance to speak in this debate on an issue of such importance in legislation—one that goes to the heart of our national identity—which is the future of the beautiful game. Football, like Shakespeare, the Beatles, and James Bond, is one of this country’s greatest contributions to the world. Not just a fantastic sport, but a global phenomenon and, arguably, our most successful cultural export. English football is watched by billions globally, with some of the most exciting players, clubs and stories of any league.

However, we must not allow that success to disguise the underlying fragilities in the English football pyramid. Too many clubs have collapsed in recent years, with consequences rippling through entire communities. In my constituency, while it has not collapsed, the football club for Chipping Norton has been away from the town for more than a decade. Its ground was bought and sold off by what I shall refer to as a rather unscrupulous individual with little regard for the club, the town or its fans, and that loss is still deeply felt.

However, there is also hope. Down the road at Banbury United, supporters, fed up with mismanagement, took matters into their own hands. They have transformed the club, taking it over and turning it into a community benefit society, with revenue from shirt sales and matchday tickets now going back into supporting local groups and good causes. After two successive promotions, they have proved that this model is not a barrier to success on the pitch. I know that the Secretary of State and the Minister have many calls on their time, but I can assure them that they would both be given a warm welcome should they choose to grace the hallowed turf of the Spencer stadium in Banbury, and I once again invite them to my constituency to do just that.

While neither Chipping Norton nor the Puritans are within the scope of this legislation because they are not high enough up the football pyramid—not yet, anyway—their stories and those of countless others up and down show why this reform is so necessary. \p Yuan Yang: My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the need for better regulation. We have just heard that he is a fan of Banbury United and that my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) is a fan of Crystal Palace. Does that not show that there is complete agreement across the football pyramid that there needs to be better regulation in football and that that would benefit all levels of the game? \p Sean Woodcock: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I also congratulate Crystal Palace on their FA Cup win and, as a Liverpool fan, I look forward to their receiving their runners-up medal in the community shield in a couple of weeks’ time.

As I said in my intervention earlier, this has the support of 80% of fans, so I find it simply staggering that Conservative Members have decided that, having put forward this legislation, they are now against it for who knows what reason. Too many clubs have been left vulnerable to reckless ownership and financial mismanagement, and it simply cannot continue. The Bill is a vital step to ensuring that football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and their community—both now and into the future. It will promote financial stability, prevent rogue owners and directors from causing harm and give supporters a stronger voice in how their club is run, safeguarding both the game and the strength of community that it fosters. \p David Burton-Sampson: My hon. Friend will know that my football club, Southend United, nearly disappeared because of mismanagement. Does he agree that the Bill will make sure that we keep these football clubs at the heart of our communities, because, ultimately, that is where they belong? \p Sean Woodcock: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we talked about rogue owners, I was only surprised that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), with his years of experience in this sphere, decided to walk out of the Chamber. But we will leave that for now and move on.

As I have said, the previous Government strutted on to the pitch full of promise, but when the whistle blew, they passed sideways, ran down the clock and then bottled it at the big moment. In contrast, this Government have shown intent and are driving the ball forward. I am proud to support this Bill in the Lobby tonight. \p Lisa Nandy: I am so grateful to hon. Members who have not just spoken in this debate today, but brought the real-life experiences and voices of fans into this Chamber. This has been Parliament at its best, ensuring that those affected are finally heard and that action is taken. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken, regardless of whether the Government are choosing to accept the amendments that they have put forward. I wish to address some of the very many valid points that have been made during the course of this debate.

I shall start with the issue of player welfare, which is clearly of such concern to so many Members from all parts of the House. It was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) among others. It has also been raised by many, many other Members over the course of the past year both with me and my hon. Friend, the Minister for Sport.

I wish to reassure the House that although the amendment around player welfare does not fit within the scope of this Bill, that does not mean that the Government do not treat it with the urgency and the utmost seriousness that it demands. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we were privileged to meet recently a number of families who have been affected by this and who have been campaigning for justice for far too long. That includes John Stiles, to whom many hon. Members have paid tribute. He spoke very movingly about the experience of his father and his family. They are not wealthy people and they deserve better treatment. As a Government, we are determined to grip this issue. We are clear that football can and must do more. I will be pleased to update the House as we make progress in that pursuit of justice.

I also thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for his points about secondary ticketing, and the associated points that he made about the cost of football, which for many fans, particularly in the premier league, is of significant concern. This game belongs to its fans; it is nothing without its fans. It is important that fans are able to access the game that they love and that they have built. He will know that the Government wasted no time in opening a consultation about secondary ticketing across the board.Our message is clear: the time is up for ticket touts. The consultation that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I launched seeks to work out how, not whether, to act on this issue. We are shortly about to publish the response to that consultation, and it will be before the House imminently.

I am really grateful to all hon. Members who have stood up for fans. Whether they are music fans, football fans or other fans, it really matters that they are heard. \p Kirith Entwistle: Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill puts fans at the heart of where they should be, and that had the Bill been in place earlier, clubs like mine—Bolton Wanderers—would not have come close to collapse? \p Lisa Nandy: I live just down the road from my hon. Friend in Bolton and has many friends who were directly affected by what happened at Bolton Wanderers, so I thank her for her tireless support for the fans and the town. Many people do not appreciate until they have been through a situation like that, as she and I have, that it does not just affect the football fans in the town. Bolton Wanderers stands for its town, as Wigan Athletic does; it is part of our identity and our pride. It is also part of our family inheritance. The chairwoman of my supporters’ club used to go to the football with her dad when she was a little girl. She now takes her children, and they will take their children. Football clubs are institutions that stand at the centre of our towns, and they deserve to be passed on to the next generation as part of our civic inheritance. \p Peter Swallow: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) mentioned what happened with Bolton Wanderers. Fans of Reading FC across Berkshire, including in Bracknell, experienced something similar when they were able to support the club to be saved from an unfit owner. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is so important that we pass the Bill so that we can prevent what happened to Reading from ever happening to a football club again? \p Lisa Nandy: When my club Wigan Athletic was in trouble because of poor ownership for the second time, I used those precise words. I said that this must be the last time this ever happens to football fans, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, here we are with so many Members telling heartbreaking stories about the near loss of their clubs—so I could not agree with him more.

I want to acknowledge to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) that although we may disagree about the best way to improve access and protect the financial sustainability of the game, I do not doubt for one moment their sincerity in wanting to make sure that far more people can experience the joy of football. The Minister for Sport said to me earlier that it has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Cheltenham to get this Bill on to the statute book, so I am grateful to him for his work.

I turn to new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has done extraordinary work throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to address the point that he did not have time to speak to earlier. We absolutely understand why he is pursuing this matter, and he is right to do so, but we believe that the clause is not necessary. I am happy to pass on the commitment that the Minister for Sport made to me: she will write to my hon. Friend with a full  explanation of why the clause is not necessary, and a copy of the letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library. On behalf of the whole House, I thank my hon. Friend for the expertise that he has brought to bear. \p Clive Betts: As I tried to set out, my intention was simply to draw attention to whether the regulator has the power—it does not necessarily have to use it—to intervene if the domestic competitions that all clubs engage in are being damaged by competitions like the club world cup, from which a handful of clubs make multimillions of pounds. I wanted to make sure that the regulator had the power to deal with that. \p Lisa Nandy: We believe that it does. As I said, the Minister will write to him on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Library so that the whole House can understand the Government’s position.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I do not really know where to start with this, to be honest, but I am determined to give it a try. When it comes to the Government’s preferred candidate, I gently point out to the hon. Member that this is a candidate that has been strongly endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He was appointed by the last Conservative Government to the board of Channel 4 and, as I made clear a moment ago, he was on the list that I inherited from the Conservative Government and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who now serves as the shadow Secretary of State, along with a Conservative donor as well.

It is astonishing that the shadow Minister has come to this House, belatedly, with allegations of cronyism, and that the best and only defence that he has been able to offer for this breathtaking hypocrisy is that his right hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State, did not have a clue what was going on in his own Department. Can he not see how absurd that is? \p Louie French: Will she give way? \p Lisa Nandy: Of course I will. I would love to know the answer. \p Louie French: Let me explain, for the benefit of Members who were not in the room at the start of the debate, that the discussion was about the fact that the gentleman in question said in the Select Committee that he was not approached by the then Minister, but by civil servants. The Secretary of State is trying to say now that her Department is not under investigation. Is that correct? Are you under investigation for this appointment? \p Roger Gale: Order. First, I am not. Secondly, the Secretary of State came very close to unparliamentary language in accusing another hon. Member of hypocrisy; I am sure she did not intend that. \p Lisa Nandy: Out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to clarify. I think that the shadow Minister might be a bit confused. To add to the confusion, I refer him to a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about the way in which the shadow Minister has made an astonishing  about-turn; having called for stronger regulation, he now calls for weaker regulation. [Interruption.] If he does not want to listen to my words, perhaps I can let him listen to his own:

“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans…I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]

Well, I preferred his earlier work. Let me say that although the shadow Secretary of State no longer backs his own Bill and will not act, this Government will.

Let me turn to something that is very close to my heart: the experiences that were given voice by many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Dartford and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who has been a tireless champion for Reading through very difficult times. She said, “Let Reading be the last”, and she is absolutely right. In the years that football fans have waited for this piece of legislation to come on to the statute book and for the promise from all those years ago to be made good, too many people have experienced the hell that she and so many others have been through.

It is only fitting that I finish with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has been tireless in her defence of her club and her town. I had the privilege of going to Morecambe to meet the Shrimps and the board, which she rightly referenced and which has done so much for the club. She outlined the impact more powerfully than any of us could, as well as the strength of feeling about owners who refuse to sell their clubs even when the impact of that would be to bring those proud clubs to the verge of collapse. It has been a privilege to work closely with her, although I wish it had been on something more positive, as I know she does.

I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box that this Government take a very dim view of owners who treat our clubs as playthings, rather than as the custodians that they are. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and all the Members of this House—or most of the Members of this House—for a constructive debate. I commend the Bill to the House. \p Roger Gale: Order. Having lowered the temperature, I trust that I can now rely on the shadow Minister to maintain the lowered temperature. If not, I might have to intervene. \p Louie French: With leave of the House, it is my pleasure to sum up this Report stage. We have heard today that there is common ground on many of the issues facing football, but as I highlighted in my opening speech, we disagree on the solutions. This is a Government who are currently under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to chair an independent football regulator. They may not like it, but that is the reality. Our amendment 18 seeks to end the politicisation of such roles and to ensure transparency on future appointments. We believe strongly that no Member would vote this measure down, given that it seeks to end cronyism over clubs and favours over fans.

New clause 1 would deal with alcohol at football grounds, as we have heard in the debate, and we have support from the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and from the Liberal Democrats. We believe this ban is outdated. Football fans should not be treated with a two-tier approach when it comes to being able to drink in the stands. We will be pressing this new clause to a Division because we on the Opposition Benches are on the side of football fans. We do not want this nanny state approach to continue; we want to make sure that football fans are treated with the respect that they deserve, and we will see tonight whose side this Government are really on.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 346.

Question accordingly negatived.

Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, 28 April).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E). \p UNKNOWN: “(1) The Independent Football Regulator must require that every season—

(a) at least ten Premier League football matches,

(b) the League Cup Final, and

(c) the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals

are made available for live broadcast on free-to-air television channels in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) the matches must include a representative selection across different clubs and times in the season, subject to reasonable considerations of scheduling and broadcasting logistics.

(3) In this section ‘free-to-air television’ means a service that satisfies the qualifying conditions of such a service defined by Section 2 of the 1996 Communications Act.”—(Max Wilkinson.)

This new clause would mandate a minimum of ten Premier League matches, the League Cup Final and the Championship, League One and League Two playoff finals on free-to-air television channels.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 340.

Question accordingly negatived. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment made: 4, page 48, line 34, leave out “a” and insert “the”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment corrects a grammatical error. \p UNKNOWN: Amendments made: 5, page 67, line 40, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment increases the time period for the Board of the IFR to carry out an internal review of a reviewable decision from 14 to 28 days.

Amendment 6, page 68, line 2, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

This amendment increases the time period for a committee of the Expert Panel of the IFR to carry out an internal review of a reviewable decision from 14 to 28 days.

Amendment 7, page 68, line 5, leave out “within” and insert “before the end of”.—(Stephanie Peacock.)

This amendment is to ensure consistency with the wording used in subsections (4) and (6) of clause 83. \p UNKNOWN: Amendment proposed: 18, page 87, line 12, at end insert—

“(3A) Any political interests of, and political donations made by, the prospective chair of the Board, must all be declared as part of the appointments process, and published before the chair’s pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee.”—(Mr French.)

Question put, That the amendment be made. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.

Third Reading \p Lisa Nandy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been 14 years since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee first called for change for football fans, and four years since Dame Tracey Crouch began the fan-led review that set out to fix the foundations of football and end the misery that too many football fans have been forced to endure for far too long. We have had four years of promises, and today we make good on those commitments.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—the Minister for Sport—and Baroness Twycross, who have steered this Bill expertly and with care to get us to this place. I thank the civil servants in my Department, who have worked tirelessly for many years to get to this point, and I particularly thank the Bill, policy and legal teams, who will be as relieved and delighted as anybody to see this Bill finally become law.

I also thank the many parliamentarians who have worked so hard with us all to get this Bill into a better shape, particularly by strengthening the provisions for fans in order to put them back at the heart of the game and to improve the backstop process. This is a light-touch regulator that will help to enhance the game, and I am really grateful to all those parliamentarians for their support.

I pay tribute to somebody who has become not just an inspiration for a lot of football fans around the country, but a friend to us all: Dame Tracey Crouch. Her fan-led review highlighted how too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their club’s very existence. Her dedication and expertise have been integral to getting us to where we are today.

Although I am sad that I am unable to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who steered the Bill through its first stages under the last Government and who no longer supports his own legislation, I want to acknowledge that, from the outset, it has been a cross-party effort to stand by football fans the length and breadth of our country.

Finally, I want to address our football fans, who are the best in the world. We are doing this for you, because for too long you have been treated as an afterthought at best, or as a nuisance at worst, in a game that is only great because of you. This Bill is for Macclesfield, for  Wigan, for Bury, for Bolton, for Derby, for Reading, for Sheffield Wednesday, for Morecambe and for many, many more clubs that have had to endure the misery of being put last when they should have been put first. We promised in our manifesto that we would end years of inaction, and make the changes for which fans have fought for so long and which are so overdue. I am proud to be part of the winning team that have put our fans back on the pitch and at the heart of the game, where they belong. \p Nusrat Ghani: I call the shadow Minister. \p Louie French: Here we are: the final opportunity for the Government and this House to trigger a VAR review before English football fans and the beautiful game are left in tears. We cannot support this expanded Bill as drafted, and we believe that passing it tonight risks harming the very game that it claims to protect.

We all largely agree on the problems in football: we have a minority of greedy owners, with loyal fans left powerless when a proud club is torn apart for profit or by reckless management. No one in this House wants to see another Bury or Macclesfield, but let us be clear and honest with fans: this Bill will not stop a bad owner damaging a club, market failure will not be removed, and clubs will not be bailed out by this Government. The risk of a breakaway league will now grow, not shrink.

This Bill risks replacing financial mismanagement with political interference, poor governance with endless red tape, and the soul of our game with a new quango that grows year by year, unchallenged by real scrutiny or accountability to Parliament or fans.

If we vote this Bill through tonight, we will not remove unaccountable owners; we will only create more unaccountable bureaucrats. This amateur Government will strangle the growth of a great British success story, rather than enable it, while Reform still struggles to manage its five-a-side team after yet another scandal—sorry, four-a-side now. English football does not belong to politicians; it belongs to the fans in the stands, the volunteers in the clubhouse and the kids pulling on the shirt for the first time on a Sunday morning.

Yet this Bill opens the door for mission creep on an extraordinary scale, with provisions that would let any future Minister expand the regulator’s powers and the leagues covered at will. As drafted, this Bill risks breaching FIFA and UEFA’s clear rules against Government overreach, putting our clubs and national sides in danger of sanctions that would shame the country on the world stage. It sets up a powerful new regulator with vast discretion, but precious little real democratic control, and it piles on costs that smaller clubs and fans simply cannot bear. If the Minister thinks that big clubs will pay for this quango alone, she needs to read her own impact report. Ultimately, the fans always pay—through higher ticket prices and higher merchandise prices—all to stand on the same terraces on which generations have previously stood.

The test of a good law is whether it solves a problem proportionately and properly, not whether it lets Ministers feel that they have done something. This Bill fails that  test, and fails it spectacularly. It treats our national game not as a living tradition rooted in local pride, but as an industry to be micromanaged by the state. This is not how English football was built, and it is not how it will be sustained.

On behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, I say clearly tonight that football is at its best when the players entertain the crowd and the referee goes unnoticed, but this Bill risks creating more referees than players—referees who answer not to clubs or supporters, but to Labour Ministers and mandarins. If this Bill passes, and we expect it will tonight, I can confirm to the House and to fans at home that a future Conservative Government will trigger a review of Labour’s regulator as soon as possible, and if it is overreaching and strangling clubs—[Interruption.] \p Nusrat Ghani: Order. We do not need any more of that disruption. \p Louie French: If the regulator is overreaching and strangling clubs with unnecessary red tape, as we believe it will under this Government, we will act decisively on behalf of fans to promote the English game again. The real threat to football’s future is not a lack of regulators; it is the erosion of competition and trust between owners, communities and supporters. We would fix that with stronger transparency rules—such as the rules that Labour Members have just voted against—as well as the better enforcement of existing laws and real fan power, not a vast new quango led by a Labour crony working three days a week on a salary of £130,000.

This shameful Labour Government are already under investigation having once again put their party first, with cronies over clubs, favours over fans and greed over the beautiful game. Tonight, the Conservatives will be voting against this Bill in good conscience, because our national game deserves better than a Government whose only knowledge of football is free tickets and corporate prawn sandwiches. It is worth noting that Labour Members have tonight voted against fans having a drink on the terraces, while their Ministers drink alcohol in their corporate hospitality boxes for free.

We will continue to stand up for the fans, not the bureaucrats creating an even larger nanny state. We will continue to stand up for healthy competition and local pride, not a one-size-fits-all state interference that will relegate English football among global competition. We will be ready to revisit this when, as is likely, it fails to deliver the promises being made, and to review it, to rein it in, to scrap it altogether and to give powers back to our sporting bodies. That was the ultimate goal of the fan-led review, as Labour Members would know if they had read it. Football belongs to the fans, and no badly drafted Acts of Parliament should ever make us forget that. [Interruption.] \p Gareth Snell: They think it’s all over! \p Nusrat Ghani: Well, it will be for you. I know who you are. [Laughter.]

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time. \p UNKNOWN: The House divided: Ayes 415, Noes 98.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), \p UNKNOWN: That the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),

That this House, at its rising on Tuesday 22 July 2025, do adjourn until Monday 1 September 2025; and at its rising on Tuesday 16 September 2025, do adjourn until Monday 13 October 2025.—(Lucy Powell.)

Question agreed to. \p UNKNOWN: [Relevant Documents: Third Report of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Re-appointment of an Electoral Commissioner, HC 934.]

Ordered,

That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will re-appoint Dr Katy Radford MBE as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 September 2025 for the period ending on 31 August 2029.—(Lucy Powell.) \p UNKNOWN: Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Dan Carden: I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on safeguarding children in combat sports. I do so with a heavy heart and a profound sense of responsibility, because today I speak for a young constituent who can no longer speak for himself.

Alex Eastwood was just 15 years old when, just over one year ago, he stepped into a ring for a kickboxing bout and never returned home. He was a son, a brother, a friend— described by his family as the heart and soul of their home. He had dreams, hopes, and an infectious passion for sports. He was a boy who filled every room with laughter and warmth. His father Ste and his mother Nikita are with us today in the Public Gallery, as are representatives from Leigh Day, the law firm that represented the family at the recent inquest. I have previously met his brothers Jake and Frankie in preparation for speaking today.

Alex’s family have shown extraordinary courage in the face of unimaginable grief by turning their pain into a powerful call for change. Alex’s death was not simply a tragic accident but a preventable loss, and it has highlighted a dangerous gap in our duty to protect children.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.) \p Dan Carden: Alex died following an unsanctioned exhibition kickboxing match at a gym in Wigan. That means it was not sanctioned by any national governing body and fell outside the jurisdiction of Kickboxing GB—the only organisation for the sport in the UK that is officially recognised by both Sport England and the World Association of Kickboxing Organisations, which is recognised by the International Olympic Committee.

The fight was meant to be “light contact”, held as part of a charity event, but it strayed tragically and fatally into danger. Alex’s opponent on the night was two years older and had experience and training in full contact fighting. As the match was unsanctioned, no independent ringside doctor or paramedics were present. Instead, there were two first responders with first aid qualifications.

Alex competed in three rounds. After becoming disoriented, he was assisted to the ring floor. He was then taken by ambulance to the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary in Wigan and later transferred to the Royal Manchester children’s hospital after he was found to have a catastrophic bleed on the brain. He underwent surgery but died in hospital three days later. A four-day inquest at Bolton coroner’s court, which concluded on Thursday 12 June, examined the circumstances of Alex’s death, the safety measures in place at the time, and the broader regulatory environment for children participating in combat sports. \p Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman; this is a very difficult subject and he is speaking with admirable compassion and understanding. I am sure the family appreciates that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is a moral duty and a legal obligation to protect children and young people in sport through the creation and promotion of a safe environment that protects them from harm, each sport has different requirements when it comes to fulfilling that obligation? While it is reasonable that a football coach does not need to lay hands on a child in any case, it is also reasonable that a karate instructor must position children, and that must require regulation and Government action. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be a sport-by-sport approach to safeguarding and regulation? \p Dan Carden: I am grateful to the hon. Member for being here tonight, and I know that the family will be grateful for the interest he has shown. I will go on to talk about the lack of regulation and what the family are calling for.

I know that the family would want me to thank the coroner in this inquest—Michael Pemberton—for his approach to Alex’s case. He described the match that Alex was part of as “chaotic and somewhat disjointed”. There was no national governing body oversight, and no clear or enforced safety standards. Gordon Mitchell, head of welfare and governance at Kickboxing GB told the inquest that the organisation would never sanction a light contact bout in a ring. He explained that such matches are permitted only on mats, where mitigating factors such as fighters stepping off the mat allow referees to step in, in the event of a mismatch or escalating risk.

On the broader framework governing children’s participation in combat sports, the inquest heard that standards around safety, medical oversight and safeguarding vary widely, and in many cases are absent all together. In the words of the coroner, the level of confidence in organisational safeguards that people would expect to exist within the sport is “sadly lacking”.

If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline minimum standard that must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant, no minimum standard of medical support that might be required, no maximum rounds, no periods of rest, no welfare checks on participants, and no risk assessment and critical incident plan. It should stop us all in our tracks to learn that in this country, children can be placed in combat situations without clear, enforceable national protections.

Alex’s family did everything right—everything a loving family would do. They encouraged him to get involved in a range of sports and activities and supported him when it became clear that he had a talent for kickboxing. They enabled him to thrive in what he loved doing and to become a six-time world champion. However, as the inquest made clear, they and Alex were failed by a lack of safeguarding, responsibility and regulation.

Every single day, children up and down the country take part in activities like Alex did. They lace up gloves, put on headgear and step into training halls and rings, with no minimum standards in place to ensure their safety. Parents who just want the best for their children, and who want them to be fit and healthy, to enjoy sports and to discover and nurture their talents are sending their children to participate in contact sports without  realising the risks. Many people do not know that there are sanctioned and unsanctioned bouts, or what that means in terms of safety. Many people do not know that there is no one governing body for kickboxing and that membership is not mandatory.

That is the shocking reality exposed by the inquest into Alex’s death. It is the reason the coroner took the highly unusual step of issuing to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport a regulation 28 prevention of future deaths report before the inquest had concluded. In that report, he raises concerns that

“there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation.”

He says that

“action should be taken to prevent future deaths”

and that the Government

“have the power to take such action.”

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has tasked her Department with exploring ways to urgently improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and combat sports and to ensure that it is always a priority. Urgent action must follow, and I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide today. What Alex’s family are demanding is simple: clear, enforceable national protections for children in combat sports. That would replace the current patchwork in which there is no consistency in rules, no oversight and no accountability.

From this tragedy, a better system must emerge. We owe it to Alex and to his family, we owe it to every parent who believes in good faith that their children are protected by the rules operating around sport and we owe it to every child who steps into a ring or on to a mat, trusting that the adults around them are keeping them safe. No child should lose their life participating in a sport they love.

I finish with the words of Alex’s parents:

“Our lives have been changed forever. Alex’s future was taken—and with it, part of ours too. We miss him every second. Now, all we have left are memories, but we also have the responsibility to make sure his death was not in vain and for his sake we will make sure we do that.”

We cannot bring Alex back, but we can ensure that his legacy is one that prevents such a tragedy from ever happening again. \p Stephanie Peacock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for his moving speech. The death of his constituent, Alexander Eastwood, as a result of a kickboxing bout is devastating. I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about child safeguarding and I can reassure him and the House that it is a priority for this Government. He advocates with care and thought for his constituents, making a powerful and moving speech—one that I have heard very clearly. In the time available to me, I will set out the Government’s plans to strengthen safeguarding for children in combat sports. I will begin by outlining key safeguarding issues in those sports; then I will set out the Government’s next steps in addressing this incredibly important issue.

First, I recognise that this is a debate that everyone would have hoped we would not have to have. The tragic death of Alexander Eastwood is something we hoped would never have happened. I am sure I speak for the whole House in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, who are here this evening. As my hon. Friend has said, they have shown incredible courage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Alexander’s family next week, and we are both committed to making sure that meaningful change happens so that no other family has to go through the pain that they have felt.

It is a priority of my Department that the safety and wellbeing of children taking part in sport are paramount. Alexander’s death is such a tragedy, and it has made it very clear that more needs to be done to protect the safety of children in combat sports. Ahead of the inquest into the death of Alexander Eastwood, the assistant coroner for Manchester West filed a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. The report highlighted specific areas of concern for children in martial arts. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out plans to work with the martial arts sector to address those concerns.

In considering our next steps, we must take account of the entire martial arts sector and its complexity. The sector is made up of many different disciplines, including judo, taekwondo, kickboxing and more. Many, though not all, of these disciplines have publicly funded national governing bodies. Many providers across the sector have robust safety measures in place. National governing bodies set minimum safeguarding standards for their affiliated clubs and competitions to comply with. These standards are in line with guidance issued by Sport England, our arm’s length body for grassroots sport.

Many clubs and competitions are not affiliated with a publicly funded governing body. However, many unaffiliated providers choose to sign up to the safeguarding code in martial arts. Organisations such as the British Martial Arts and Boxing Association support unaffiliated martial arts providers to adopt the safeguarding code. The code is funded by Sport England, and recognises clubs and associations that demonstrate strong safeguarding practices against a set of minimum standards. Providers with recognition under the code can display a logo on their promotional materials to show participants that their safety measures have been vetted.

The coroner’s report on the case of Alexander Eastwood highlighted specific issues around clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with a national governing body. We are now looking into that as a matter of urgency. The coroner identified that without set standards, clubs and competitions may not have adequate regulations around medical checks and support, the number of rounds and periods of rest, participant welfare checks and critical incident plans. Despite the programmes in place to support robust safeguarding practices in martial arts, unaffiliated providers are not required to meet any shared safety standards. I recognise that coaches and providers work hard to make martial arts available to communities across the country, and I recognise the work done by clubs and associations to comply with the safeguarding code in martial arts, but there must be strong, consistent standards for safeguarding children across all martial arts. Clearly, more must be done.

Clubs and competitions across martial arts should share consistent standards for safeguarding children. Parents and carers should be able to trust that appropriate safety measures are in place, regardless of where their children participate. Existing safety standards for martial arts set by Sport England and its partners must be robust and fit for purpose, but national standards must also translate into strong safety practices across all martial arts. The sector should look to encourage as many clubs as possible to adopt shared safety standards. The Government will consider what more can be done in this space.

Parents and carers deserve to be able to make informed decisions about where their children participate in martial arts. Information on best safety practices and which clubs and competitions meet shared standards should be readily available to participants and their guardians. Of course, the burden of finding information should not only lie with participants and their guardians; clubs and competitions with robust safety practices should be supported to promote the standards they meet. The Government are looking at all these areas to assess what more can be done to safeguard children in combat sports. As promised in her response to the coroner’s report, the Secretary of State will meet the family of Alexander Eastwood to hear about their experiences and views, and to discuss our thinking before we go into more detail publicly. I hope everyone can appreciate why that approach is being taken.

In addition, in response to the coroner’s report on this case, my Department has tasked Sport England with working with the martial arts sector on this issue. It will identify improvements and present a plan in the coming months. That work will include developing guidance for the martial arts sector and reviewing the safeguarding code for martial arts to ensure that it reflects best practice and is fit for purpose. Sport England will also work with the NSPCC to help educate parents and carers on what to look for in choosing where to participate in martial arts. That will involve the NSPCC’s Keeping Your Child Safe in Sport Week—a week of educational programming in October.

My Department is also exploring ways to strengthen safety standards in clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with national governing bodies. We are having conversations with the martial arts sector to understand how we can help parents and carers to be confident that their children will be safe when they participate. Our aim will be to ensure that safeguarding practices in martial arts are consistent, effective and transparent. \p Dan Carden: I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has been up to see the family in the Gallery this evening and who will meet them next week. I know the family and the solicitors, Leigh Day, will be incredibly grateful for the thorough response the Minister has given tonight, putting a lot of information on the record. These sports and activities for young people are so important for our communities, and we do not want to put any young person off taking up a sport, competing or becoming a professional in that sport. This is about safety; it is about giving parents the safety and security they need, and about something good coming from Alex Eastwood’s death. \p Stephanie Peacock: I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, his moving contribution and for putting that important point on the record. As he said, sport should be a safe and welcoming environment that participants, parents and carers can have confidence in. Many martial arts providers work hard to safeguard children who participate under their supervision, and there are strong safety practices in place across many areas of combat sport, but more must be done to ensure that safety standards are strong, consistent and transparent. Standards of practice should be robust and widely adopted across the sector, and it should be clear to parents and carers which clubs and competitions comply with shared standards and which do not.

Nothing can bring Alexander back, but as the Secretary of State said to me before the debate, we are determined to work with his family to make sure that part of his legacy is real change, so that a tragedy like this never happens again.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.