5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Sohail Zaffer raped a child. He received 42 months. Manzoor Akhtar raped a child. He was sentenced to four and a half years. Ramin Bari was convicted of four rapes. He got just nine years—just two years per rape. These men were sentenced, but not punished. Does the Justice Secretary think these sentences represent justice? If she does not, like most people in this country, will she change the law so that rape gang perpetrators receive full life sentences?
In the year since Labour took office, can the Justice Secretary tell us how many individuals have been prosecuted for smuggling people in on small boats?
I asked the Justice Secretary a very simple question about one of the biggest challenges facing our country right now, and the whole House can see that she did not have a clue. This is about not just the pathetically low levels of prosecutions under her watch, but the fact that she has waved through guidelines to shorten sentences for immigration offences. Under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, the most serious offence for facilitation carries a life sentence, but she is watering that down to between 10 and 16 years. Instead of smashing the gangs, she is slashing the sentences. Why will she not do something for once and stop this?
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.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition. The draft order makes modest technical changes to the administration of the energy company obligation scheme, and we will not press it to a vote today. We agree that it is important for low-income households to get the help they need to save money on their energy bills and escape the hardships of fuel poverty. However, Ministers should reflect on how their policies are making energy more expensive for everyone by increasing dependency on costly and unreliable renewables. According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, environmental levies will increase from £9.9 billion last year to £14.8 billion by 2030. That is a result of policy choices made by this Government, and the cost will inevitably fall on the vulnerable and make fuel poverty harder to escape. Last week, I raised with the Minister Labour’s claim on social media: “£129 off your bills, delivered by Labour”. Will she accept that that was wrong, because that fall in prices was driven by reductions in wholesale gas prices? The Government are trying to take the country off gas, while policy costs imposed by Ministers are actually increasing. She disassociated herself from those social media posts last week, so—
I will just invite the hon. Lady to look at the bigger picture. Manufacturing jobs are being lost because of high energy prices driven by Government policy, the costs of which are increasing, so I invite the Minister to respond to my question. Instead of allowing policy to run faster than the technology will allow, Ministers should focus on how to make energy cheaper and more reliable. That is the real pathway to fighting fuel poverty.
If it was clear for such a long time that infrastructure needed to be improved and that the right way to do that was increasing levies on bills, why was that not in the Labour manifesto? Why did the Labour manifesto instead promise that bills would be £300 a year cheaper?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I knew as soon as my brilliant and learned right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) secured this debate that it would be well worth attending and very interesting, and it has proved to be exactly that. It builds on important work that has already been done by POST and Ofsted, as well as by the DFE officials who wrote the recent guidance, and it further increases the level of public debate and improves our knowledge. I would echo a lot of what other Members have said about the pros and cons, the opportunities and threats, because there is a delicate balance between those things. We heard really good speeches from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Swindon North (Will Stone), as well as a brilliant intervention from the hon. Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm). There was a particularly good and thoughtful speech from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with which I agreed 100%, as indeed there was from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin). Of course we want students to learn about AI and how to use it effectively. It is a very effective research tool in the right hands. On the other hand, we want them to understand that it is not always right, despite its godlike quality and the incredible smoothness with which it lies. We must also teach them to understand that it is not a substitute for original thinking. They must have the ability to do their own research. We must avoid having cardboard cut-out students who regurgitate a particular way of framing issues. We heard from the hon. Member for Guildford about the MIT study that used brain measurement experiments to show a decline in critical thinking. Of course, this debate is nested in a wider debate about the use of screens and technology by our students and educators, and that study reminds me of a similar one, which discovered that a student’s simply having a smartphone on them reduced their retention of information from an educational video. The effect of these things can be quite subtle. It was not being on the phone, but just having it on them that reduced their attention. The wider rewiring of childhood and of the student experience is operating on several levels, of which AI is just one. According to a study by the Higher Education Policy Institute, more than half of HE students now use AI to help write essays—I suspect that figure is rather higher by now. One vice-chancellor I spoke to said that he thought we would end up going back to more handwriting in exams to avoid cheating, which is now incredibly present. I was amused by a social media post the other day that said, “Lots of discussion about how on earth we will spot AI cheating,” with an image of an essay that began with the wonderful words, “I cannot help you to write this assignment. It would be wrong of me to do so.” It had clearly been written by a very honest AI, but it had been handed in by the student none the less. It is perhaps more important than ever that we teach students to understand what is real and not real in the online world. There has recently been discussion about a new band called The Velvet Sundown. Sir Jeremy, I cannot quite place when you came of age—perhaps somewhere between the new romantics and the grunge period. I will not assume where you stand on that spectrum, but this band sounds a bit like a mashed-up version of Creedence Clearwater Revival. It sounds okay—it is not bad—but it is very derivative, and all the pictures of the band look kind of AI-y. However, the band denies it. The interesting thing about the episode is that it is not possible to say definitively whether it is real or not—and there will be many such cases, some of them very important. We see AI-generated images from the middle east; people are told that things have happened when they may not have happened. We see fake bot accounts playing a role in our politics. A surprising number of accounts in the UK suddenly disappeared during the recent Israeli strikes on Iran. What does that tell us about the interference in our democracy empowered by AI? Of course, there are opportunities in students’ use of AI, but there are also risks. There are important benefits from learning to handwrite. A surgeon I spoke to recently talked about his worries about the future, with fewer children learning the fine motor skills that are learned with handwriting. Let me turn to educators’ use of all this. It is very exciting. If someone had asked me 15 years ago about AI in schools, and technology in schools and universities more generally, I would probably have been unabashedly, straightforwardly enthusiastic. The attractions are obvious, whether for the production of lesson plans, the personalisation of learning, the translation of languages, the avoidance of marking and repetitive work or the reduction of workload, which is crucial for teacher retention. It is all very exciting, but of course there are risks, which have been illustrated well in the debate. I am excited by some of the models that bring human judgment together with AI. It is probably slightly invidious to single out a particular group, but No More Marking is an interesting model. It is doing lots of things that bring together teacher judgment and AI tools. It talks about “human in the loop” models, and that is potentially the way that these things will need to move forward. Of course, we have also heard about the difficulties of assessment in the new era. We have talked a bit about the dangers of AI use in exams in which computers are used. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire talked about the quaint language in the legislation, which refers to “word processors”. Perhaps word processors are exactly what we need. For those who really need it, we should dig out some of those things from the ’80s and ’90s that can do nothing other than function as a typewriter. However, it is not just about exams. The interim curriculum and assessment review included a suggestion that we might have more coursework, but while there was always scope for cheating and social biases in coursework, those dangers have increased. I think that Becky Francis, who is running that review, is conscious of the risk. I share my right hon. Friend’s scepticism and concern about the move to an all-online examination system, and the way that would iterate back through our school system. I think that is a very dangerous way to go. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, brilliantly explained some of the wider concerns about cognitive and attention damage caused by some of these tools. There is a famous philosophy experiment by John Searle called the Chinese room. He talks about what machines do and do not experience, and what they can and cannot do. In the experiment, Chinese characters are fed into one end of a box, somebody looks them up in a table and feeds Chinese characters out of the other end of the box, and nothing is truly understood inside the box; it is just inputs and outputs. In a sense, we run the risk of putting all our children in the Chinese room, where they are set a task, perhaps even using AI, they go away and use AI to find a plausible answer for their coursework, exam, homework or whatever, and the real cognition—the real learning—does not happen in the middle of that process. We have also talked about some of the other risks, and that brings me to the final thing that I want to talk about: the fact that this debate is nested in a wider set of discussions about screen time, social media and students’ relationship with technology, all of which are magnified by AI. I will not relitigate the discussions we have had with the Government about our case for a complete ban on phones in our schools. I think that the AI dimension makes the argument stronger. AI makes some of the issues about deepfake porn and intimate image abuse even more acute than they already were, but this thing about cognition and AI that we have talked about is also an issue about technology more generally. It is known that people understand better and take in more information from material written on a piece of paper than that on a screen. There are wider issues, to which I have already referred, about what the excessive use of technology does to a person’s ability to take on board information—and, indeed, to present it. Recently, the DFE surveyed last year’s GCSE students and their parents about the things they wanted students to have done more of at school. One of the things at the very top of the list was presenting information, public speaking and marshalling an argument. That is one of the great 21st-century skills—it is what we are all doing now. I pity the wonderful and long-suffering people who write Hansard, because my speech today consists of a series of scrawls and arrows; it looks like a Jeremy Deller painting, and they will never decrypt it. The ability to put together an argument, and not just to use Ctrl+V and Ctrl+C, is one of the critical skills of the 21st century. It is vital that we do not drift into a world in which we do not learn those skills because we outsource our thinking to an outboard motor in the form of AI. I hope I have brought out some of the pros and cons in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said at the very start, this is not an issue on which there is a great degree of partisan conflict. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how we can make the best of these exciting new technologies and avoid some of their downsides.
Obviously, the Secretary of State has an open invitation to visit Crowborough and Wadhurst stations.
“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.
Well, it will be for you. I know who you are. [Laughter.] Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
One of the most important things we can do, as the Lord Chancellor seems to indicate, is reduce the number of cases going into the system by reducing reoffending where possible, including intergenerational reoffending. Given that 65% of boys with a parent in prison will go on to offend, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the children of prisoners are properly identified and supported, so that they do not become the next generation of people in prison?
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?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
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”.
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.
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.
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—
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—
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—
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.]
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.]
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?
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.
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?
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?
9. What steps her Department is taking to support victims of grooming gangs through the court system.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her response. Thousands of children across the UK have been abused by grooming gangs, yet charities still warn of victim blaming by police and those in authority. We should be clear that the problem is not children; it is those who prey on them. What are the Government doing to ensure that victims are properly supported and receive the justice they deserve?
Under the SNP, the number of suspected criminals in Scotland being let off with a slap on the wrist has increased by 28% in a year, according to the latest data. Now the Labour Government here seem to want to copy the SNP. Why will the Labour Government not put victims first, instead of doing what they are doing now—letting dangerous criminals off with short and weak sentences?
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.
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?
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.
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?
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak in the debate.