State of Climate and Nature
Order. I want to get all Members in, so can we please have shorter questions and answers?
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
State of Climate and Nature
I call Llinos Medi.
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
UK-France Migration: Co-operation
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement this afternoon. I shall allow a few moments for the Front Benchers to swap over.
- Hansard source
Future of the Post Office
I call the shadow Minister.
- Hansard source
Future of the Post Office
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Northern Ireland Veterans: Prosecution
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the more than 175,000 people who signed this e-petition, of whom 403 are my Huntingdon constituents. I would like to start by paying particular tribute to the military personnel who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between August 1969 and July 2007 in what was the longest continuous operational deployment of our armed forces, and in which 722 service people lost their lives as a result of terrorist action, and 1,441 in total. Over the last decade, we have seen myriad bodies established to investigate injuries and deaths during the troubles. In this time, many have raised concerns about the reliability and credibility of evidence and witness statements—some from over 50 years ago—and reopened some investigations that had long since concluded and had a line drawn beneath them. I am a veteran myself of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is 15 years since I served in Afghanistan, and I would hate to think that someone could now quiz me on where I was stood on a particular day, who I was stood next to, and which direction I was facing, and for those answers to perhaps dictate my freedom, and how my family and those around me would be impacted. To ask people to remember what they were doing over 50 years ago is absolutely ludicrous. This Government have said that the last Government’s legislation was flawed, that it failed, and that they will amend it in a way that “honours our duty towards…veterans”.—[Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 10.] Amid so much anxiety being felt by veterans of Northern Ireland and their families, I would like to hear clarity from the Secretary of State in his wind-up on how the Government will honour their duty towards veterans in their actions and exactly what they plan to do on taking the IRA to task on this. The words from Back Benchers on the Government side have very much indicated that the aim of this legislation is to prosecute the IRA going forward, and I would like to hear from the Secretary of State what his plans are to make that process occur. Although I am a veteran myself, I never served on Operation Banner. My own service overlapped with the tail end of our operations in Northern Ireland, but the lessons learned and the skills won across nearly four decades characterised so much of my training. Those were skills that we applied to counter-insurgency operations in Iraq: fives and 20s, rummages, public order et al. Without such hard-won knowledge, my own experience on operations might have been very difficult, and my generation of soldiers, and now veterans, owe a debt of gratitude to those who served on Operation Banner. Growing up in the ’80s, the sight on the news of British soldiers patrolling in a place that looks so familiar, but felt so distant, was a stalwart—a visual cue for a conflict I did not then understand. It was a time when the word “terrorist” simply meant the IRA and only the IRA. In the wake of Iraq and then Afghanistan, it is difficult to fully comprehend how dangerous the operations in Northern Ireland truly were. We lost 178 service personnel over a decade on Operation Telic, including the invasion of Iraq and subsequent warfighting operations. We lost 170 service personnel on Operation Banner in 1972 alone. We must stand behind those who have served this nation and fought against terrorism. The Government must stand behind our armed forces post service to ensure protection, safety and support for all veterans. It is therefore a grave concern that the Government did not support the legacy and reconciliation Act, which would have shut down 38 legacy inquests. If the Government go the way that many feel they will, they may get their legacy legislation catastrophically wrong. We could see those cases and more reopen with, to quote my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), “at least 50 innocent retired veterans will be exposed to legal persecution for crimes they did not commit.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 944.] We simply cannot let that happen. Constituents who served in Northern Ireland have contacted me to express their dismay at what they feel is this Government’s attitude towards them and those they served alongside. Veterans in my constituency and the country at large are at a loss to think that historical, often baseless, cases might be opened, reopened and vexatiously pursued. That is causing unfathomable worries for many, some now at the end of their days. Where are the reassurances that the Government’s future legislation will protect rather than persecute veterans? Not only will that have an impact on veterans, but I am concerned about the impact on future retention and recruitment of our armed forces if people feel the orders they give, or their actions, will be subject to public investigation in perpetuity. Members from both sides of the Chamber who have served may well be brought within the scope of that. I urge the Government to bring clarity to the minds of those who served in Operation Banner. I urge the Government not to betray those who fought for this country, and to commend, rather than condemn, their courageous restraint. I urge them to go about this matter in the right way and stand with our veterans, rather than playing into the hands of those who wish to rewrite history, settle scores and drag our veterans through the mire.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
I am grateful to have secured today’s Adjournment debate on an issue that affects communities across the country: the condition of our roads. Although I will focus on the situation in Cheshire and in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, and on what I believe is a failure by local authorities to get to grips with the issue, I will begin by setting the context and reflecting on the broader systemic problems with how we repair and maintain our road network. The Public Accounts Committee recently published a report on the condition and maintenance of local roads in England. It shows that this problem is widespread; that the Department for Transport does not have a good grasp of the real condition of local roads in England; and that funding arrangements to local authorities are likely to be pushing them to focus spending on short-term, reactive work. In my view, this reactive rather than proactive approach to road maintenance in Cheshire urgently needs to change. Instead of neglected routes being identified and tackled, particularly in rural areas, we see a pattern of piecemeal patch-ups on individual potholes rather than long-term, cost-effective repairs that offer real value for money.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
That is exactly the point I am making—the hon. Gentleman says it very well. As I outline the issue in more detail, I urge the Minister to consider how local authorities might be encouraged to take a more strategic, preventive approach. I have lost count of the number of times that frustrated residents have asked me why a white circle of paint has been drawn around one pothole, while another right next to it is left untouched because it does not meet the criteria for repair. We all know that within a week or two a team will have to return to fix the one that was missed.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
The hon. Member makes an important point. This is about voicing the views of residents, and they know their area best. Residents have seen how a short-term mindset has consequences. The condition of our roads is worsening, and the national repair backlog has grown, from estimates of between £7.6 billion and £11.7 billion in 2019, to over £15 billion today. That backlog in road repairs has rightly been called a “national embarrassment”, and it is a sign that the system we have in place is simply not working. During her time on the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) rightly made the case for a more strategic approach to road repair and maintenance, alongside greater funding certainty and a simplified allocation process. I echo those calls today, both to the Minister and to Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council. This is not a partisan point—I know that Members across the House share frustrations with how local authorities manage road repairs. My intention is to offer a constructive perspective on how we might improve things in my constituency and across the country. Cheshire is the best county to drive through. We have outstanding countryside, beautiful villages and scenic routes, but what should be a pleasure is too often spoiled by potholes. In my constituency, where public transport is minimal and key amenities such as a GP or post office are often too far to reach without a car, that is not just an inconvenience but a real barrier to daily life. Businesses depend on those roads, and crumbling surfaces damage vehicles, endanger road users, and hold back our local economy.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
That is an important point. This issue is having an impact on that road, but also on a village, and on businesses and people who are trying to use that area. That is why we need a better system—one that delivers better roads and better value for the taxpayer. We must not settle for the status quo piecemeal approach that councils such as Cheshire West and Chester, and Cheshire East currently seem to take. Potholes are one of the top issues in my inbox, as they are for many right hon. and hon. Members, yet as Members of Parliament we do not have direct control over local roads. Highways are a devolved responsibility, so when constituents raise concerns, I encourage them to report issues to the council, and work with them to follow up with officials and draw attention to where repairs are urgently needed. But people are rightly frustrated and, as we have heard, local voices need to be heard. That is why I have secured this Adjournment debate, to do what I can in Parliament to raise this issue, highlight its severity in Cheshire, and push for a better approach to tackling our county’s, and the UK’s growing roads crisis.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
I thank the hon. Member for his point, and I will go on to say that it is not just an issue of funding, as there are serious issues about how that strategic approach is taken. As I was saying, this is a crisis. Whether from knocking on doors or through people contacting my office, I have dealt with hundreds of cases relating to road maintenance, from potholes to overgrown hedges, poor road signage and other highways issues. To really understand the impact on people locally, I want to take a few moments to share some personal stories from those affected by the poor state of the roads in Chester South and Eddisbury. David Doyle runs a taxi company just outside Tarporley, and he came to see me at one of my mobile advice surgeries to share his growing concerns about the state of our roads. As someone who drives across Cheshire all day, every day, for a living, he sees the problem daily. We all know how frustrating, and at times dangerous, it is to dodge potholes, or that moment when we wince because we have hit one and we feel the jolt through the car. But for David, the issue is not just about inconvenience or even the rising cost of repairs, for new tyres or suspension; it is also about lost income. If his car is damaged, he cannot work—he may even have to cancel bookings or leave passengers stranded—so someone’s livelihood is being put at risk by the failure to maintain our roads properly. It is not just motorists who are affected by poor road conditions. Paul Kerr, a keen cyclist, came to see me recently at a surgery in Huxley. He cycles over 1,000 km a month across the UK, and he told me that the worst roads he has ridden are in Cheshire. Potholes are inconvenient and sometimes dangerous for drivers, but they pose a serious safety risk for cyclists. The issue is often made worse because repairs tend to be done with motorists in mind. Potholes near the edge of the carriageway may be ignored or dismissed as too shallow to bother with, yet for cyclists, who are more exposed and ride closer to the verge, even a small defect can be hazardous. Of course, when drivers instinctively swerve to avoid a damaged section of road, they can unintentionally put cyclists at greater risk. We must do more to recognise cyclists’ right to safe, well-maintained roads, especially in Cheshire, where cycling is not only good for our health and the environment, but one of the best ways to enjoy our beautiful countryside. Those two examples come from constituents living in the Cheshire West and Chester part of my constituency, but the roads are no better in Cheshire East. I recently went with Councillor Janet Clowes, our excellent councillor for Wybunbury ward, to see the state of the Newcastle Road, leading up to the roundabout serving the Wychwood Village and Wychwood Park estates. Councillor Clowes described the inaction of Cheshire East council to fix the deteriorating road surface and intermittent potholes, where the speed limit on Newcastle Road is 60 miles per hour. Traffic weaving in and out of this pothole slalom on the approach to the roundabout has led to multiple accidents. Despite repeated requests over a two-year period for the road to be top-dressed, or at least to have sections of level 2 patching to make this section safer, her requests have been denied, with funds being channelled to more urban areas elsewhere in Cheshire East. Herein lies another issue: some £53 million has been allocated to Cheshire East’s highways department this year, but not a penny is being spent in the Wybunbury ward in my constituency.
- Hansard source
Condition of Roads: Cheshire
My right hon. Friend makes such an important point and really hits the nail on the head. It is just not acceptable that wards such as the large ward of Wybunbury in Cheshire East in my constituency are consistently neglected, with funding being diverted elsewhere—as my right hon. Friend points out, we do not know where. Cheshire East council may forget the rural areas of the borough, as its counterpart in Cheshire West does, but I will not stop speaking up for Wybunbury, and neither will Councillor Clowes. Let me briefly share one more example from Cheshire East. Wrenbury-cum-Frith was temporarily renamed “Wrenbury-cum-Pothole” by locals. The main issue in Wrenbury was on Station Road, a 650-foot thoroughfare leading into the heart of the village and therefore used frequently by residents. Frustration with the state of the roads ran so high that villagers actually amended their own welcome sign and erected another on the road, warning drivers that the condition of this road would “break your vehicle and your soul.” On 650 feet of road, there were 174 potholes and countless reports to Cheshire East council, and campaigns led by Councillor James Pearson and the parish council followed. Only after the issue got national coverage did Cheshire East council finally commit to repairing the road. In those examples, we can see three clear issues emerging with the current approach to road maintenance in Cheshire. First, while both councils seek to follow the national “Well Managed Highway Infrastructure” code of practice, it has resulted in maintenance strategies that are reactive, rather than proactive, leading to wasted council tax and Government highway maintenance and pothole allocations. Secondly, there has been a failure from the councils to think about the wider impacts that poor roads have on individuals, businesses and communities. Thirdly, there is a failure fully to understand the need to more effectively prioritise rural roads, often where public transport is not viable or simply non-existent, across constituencies such as Chester South and Eddisbury, where there is a far greater social, educational and economic dependency on the rural highway network. As I begin to conclude my remarks, I will reflect briefly on the funding allocated to Cheshire West and Chester council and Cheshire East council and how it is being used by their respective highways departments. Frankly, I do not believe that a lack of funding justifies the poor performance we have seen, and the figures tell their own story. Over the past few years, both councils have significantly increased the number of potholes being filled; in Cheshire West and Chester, the number of potholes being repaired has more than tripled since 2021. That might sound like progress, but I suggest it points to something else: that repairs are not being done to a lasting standard and that the “patch it up” strategy means the wider network is deteriorating at a faster and faster rate. In one case alone, a single pothole on the A51 at Blakenhall had to be repaired nine times in just 18 months. In addition, the focus primarily on urban networks has exacerbated a culture of managed decline on rural carriageways, where repairs are too often delayed or overlooked altogether. The specific challenges faced by rural roads are often ignored—the wear and tear caused by heavy vehicles such as tractors and HGVs, the lack of alternative transport options and the need to travel greater distances just to access basic amenities. I urge the Minister to ensure that all councils are considering not just our urban streets, but the needs of the rural road networks. What makes that even more frustrating is that Conservative councillors in Cheshire West and Chester have repeatedly put forward reasonable, fully costed proposals to improve the highways network that would have made a meaningful difference, particularly for rural areas. Over the past two years alone, they included more than £3 million in additional investment for core maintenance, gully clearing, pavement safety and public rights of way, and every single one was rejected by the Labour-led council. At the same time, the council has steadily reduced its own funding contribution to highways maintenance, cutting it from £4.5 million under the previous Conservative administration to just £2.05 million in 2023-24. Had it simply maintained earlier spending levels, it could have invested an additional £14 million in the network by now. That is not a funding problem from central Government—it is a political choice at a local level, and residents are paying the price. The situation is made worse by outdated guidance from the Department for Transport, which lacks clear direction from local authorities on the use of new technologies for assessing road conditions and repairing potholes, as well as on how to adapt to the challenges posed by climate change. As the condition of our roads has worsened, we have seen large sums paid out in compensation; Cheshire West and Chester paid out over £200,000 last year alone. Meanwhile, Cheshire East has faced more than 2,500 legal claims related to pothole damage since 2021, but only a fraction of those claims have been accepted. Astonishingly, tens of thousands of pounds have been spent on legal fees just to review those applications. That is not an efficient use of public money. All of this points to a system that is reactive, wasteful, and deeply frustrating for residents. According to the industry, it costs around £57 to repair a pothole as part of a planned, proactive approach—that is a fraction of the cost of dealing with compensation claims, not to mention the inconvenience for drivers and the damage to vehicles. I am certain that my constituents would far rather see durable, well-maintained roads than have to battle with the council for months to claim compensation for damage that should never have occurred in the first place. I hope I have made clear just how strongly my constituents and I feel about the state of our roads in Cheshire. The answer is not endless pots of money, but a fundamental change in approach, one that tackles the problem proactively and makes sustainable, long-term, value-for-money repairs. People do not want their council tax or Government grants to be wasted on crumbling repairs and short-term fixes. Many Members in the Chamber today will have had similar experiences, so with collaborative and constructive intent, my ask of the Minister is for the Department to recognise that Cheshire’s roads are in an unacceptable condition. I ask for his support in advocating for a better approach to road repairs, so that all my constituents, whatever their mode of transport, can have confidence in Cheshire’s roads.
- Hansard source
State of Climate and Nature
It is a rare pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box today, given that he turned down the opportunity to defend his plan for clean power by 2030 or the report from the National Energy System Operator that was published earlier in the year. Perhaps that is why we are being given a slightly longer statement than usual, making up for missed opportunities. However, we welcome the Met Office’s report, which makes for interesting reading. I think we can all attest to the fact that Britain today is warmer than it was before. We all agree that the challenge of the changing climate is vast, and it is one of many challenges facing the United Kingdom today, but I must tell the House and the right hon. Gentleman that ridiculous statements such as that made this morning by the Environment Secretary, labelling opponents of net zero “unpatriotic”, is as offensive as it is risible, and does nothing to advance the cause. I must also express my growing sense of unease, and that of many others, about the language emanating from those surrounding this Secretary of State, accusing anyone who dares to question the policies or plans being worked on by his Department of being “deniers” or being supportive of an “end to our British way of life”. We need to bring back a sense of rationality, or proportion, to this debate, because out there, language such as this is alienating more and more people from the important cause of ensuring that the planet we pass on to our children and their children is in a better state than the one we have inherited. The Secretary of State calls this “radical truth telling”, but I am afraid that he is not being honest with the British people about the impact of the Government’s plans on the climate, bills and jobs, or about the sacrifices it demands. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear: chasing “Net Zero by 2050” is unachievable without making the country worse off. That is the truth. Global warming is a global issue, which we cannot face alone. The global climate challenge will not be solved by the UK alone, and it cannot be solved on the backs of British workers or British bill payers.
- Hansard source
State of Climate and Nature
I completely agree, Mr Speaker, and I apologise if I insinuated the opposite in any way. The UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions. That is also the truth. In fact, now that I come to think of it, it is rather shameful that the Secretary of State should be using this report from the Met Office as cover, while ratcheting up the language and increasing the shrill criticism of all who question the Department and its policies, all to distract from the fact that the plans mean that Britain will be poorer and that no one looking at how we are decarbonising could ever claim that this is a model to follow. We are proud to have been a world leader—
- Hansard source
State of Climate and Nature
Members do not give way when making or responding to a statement. We are proud to have been a world leader, but it is not a race if no one else is running. If we are leading the way, we need to make sure that it is a path that others will follow. We must decarbonise in a way that creates energy security and prosperity, rather than forcing industry abroad and impoverishing British people. Why is that so hard for the Labour party to understand? We see in the Met Office’s report that the demand for cooling has approximately doubled—a strong case for introducing more air conditioning into homes, which would improve comfort and reduce the burden on the health system during heatwaves. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to expand the boiler upgrade scheme to include air-to-air heat pumps, which, as he says, offer cooling as well as heating, may I urge him to speak to the Mayor of London and get the ridiculous restrictions on air conditioning units in newbuilds in London removed? We must move away from this poverty mindset on reducing energy usage. Paying for solar panels to be switched off, while refusing to absorb the excess demand to cool homes, is truly ridiculous. It is time to take the global scale and nature of this challenge seriously. Offshoring manufacturing, like ceramics, does not solve global warming, but it does make Britain poorer and Brits unemployed. To build this Government’s 1.5 million new homes, we will use more bricks that at any time since the second world war, but thanks to this Government, fewer than ever before will be made here in Britain. While the Secretary of State admired the fast-paced build out of new renewable generation, new nuclear and low-carbon energy on an unseen scale on his recent visit to the People’s Republic of China, perhaps he was able to reflect on the factors enabling that: the opening of two new coal-fired power stations every week, and the cost of industrial energy in China being less than a third of our domestic cost. We cannot innovate, manufacture, and create growth and prosperity while our energy costs are killing manufacturing. I am afraid that this Government’s plans will drive up the underlying cost of energy for industry, and Britain will pay the price. Only a year ago, Labour candidates were trotting out lines on how they would cut bills by £300. Since then, network charges, which account for 22% of an energy bill, have risen by over £100 as a result of the rush to build out the grid for new renewables. Cornwall Insights, an independent energy analyst, has called for the Secretary of State to be “transparent about what the money is being spent on”. Its principal consultant has urged the Secretary of State to be honest with the public about the impact of net zero policy costs on bills. Of course, a clean, secure and reliable power source exists in the form of nuclear. We welcome the announcements of the commitment to Sizewell C and the small modular reactor programme, but the lack of ambition, the refusal to commit to a third gigawatt-scale reactor—preferably on Anglesey—the decision to decommission the UK’s stockpile of plutonium, the selection of only one small modular reactor technology, and the refusal to repeat the 24 GW ambition that we set out for the nuclear industry are frustrating. We could do so much more. Will the Secretary of State commit to protecting Wylfa for a new gigawatt-scale reactor in the future? It is indeed time for a policy of radical honesty. Global warming is a global challenge, and I am afraid the Secretary of State’s plans will have a negligible, or even negative, impact on global emissions. Sadly, he is driven by ideology, not by the practicalities of facing this challenge while growing the economy. We are telling the difficult truths; the Government are running from reality.
- Hansard source
Privilege
I put on record my gratitude to the Minister for reaching out to me earlier to explain her position; to the Clerk of the Journals for briefing me this afternoon; and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for talking me through this issue over the weekend. I will be unusually brief, because I wish to return to the debate in Westminster Hall—a lot of hon. Members who would otherwise be in the Chamber for this debate are currently engaged in another debate on Northern Ireland. The Conservative party strongly supports the motion as worded on the Order Paper. The Omagh bombing inquiry was set up by my former right hon. Friend Chris Heaton-Harris in 2023 to deal with one of the very worst atrocities of the troubles, in which the Real IRA attempted to derail the peace process and, in doing so, killed many innocent civilians. As my right hon. Friend understood when he set up the inquiry, it was critical to have a process that could compel witnesses and take evidence under oath to get to the bottom of exactly what happened. Consequently, it is of acute importance that that inquiry has access to all available information in reaching its conclusions. As the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) made clear in his remarks, anything else would make a mockery of the process. On that note, and on a point that the right hon. Member made, it is essential that the Republic co-operates fully with this inquiry. We have had encouraging signs that it will, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I was reassured to hear the remarks made by the Chair of the Privileges Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). I look forward to hearing that Committee’s conclusions, but its members should be in no doubt that the Conservative party wishes to see this information handed over to the inquiry for its consideration.
- Hansard source
Privilege
My comments will be necessarily brief, given the role that I play as Chair of the Committee of Privileges. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for the comments he has made and the respect with which he is conveying this motion to the Committee. The Committee stands ready to deal with this matter, should the House decide shortly to refer it to us. I note that the motion asks us to report our conclusions back to the House by the end of October. We stand ready to carefully consider any issues arising from the release of the unreported evidence from the Northern Ireland Committee’s 2009 inquiry. We should also wish to consider issues arising from the inclusion in the terms of reference of a public inquiry of a document that is—as has been acknowledged—rightfully the property of the House. The principle established in the Bill of Rights 1689 that proceedings of Parliament ought not to be questioned or impeached in any place out of Parliament is potentially infringed by such a provision. I am mindful, however, that the solicitor to the Omagh bombing inquiry has very properly included in his petition to the House a respectful recognition of the constitutional principle involved, and is mindful of the privileges of the House. I put on record my gratitude to him for that consideration. Finally, whatever the constitutional principles involved—and the Committee will take advice—it must be the case that we all wish the Omagh bombing inquiry well in its endeavour to establish whether anything could have been done to prevent a despicable terrorist act that killed 29 people—including a woman pregnant with twins, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset said—and irrevocably affected the lives of many more. Our thoughts must ever be with the victims of that atrocious action, both living and dead. If it is within our power to be of aid to the inquiry, I am certain that my Committee and I would wish nothing other than to do so.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). It seems to me that the way that he introduced his very modest amendment to remove the word “attempts” was entirely proper. I support the Bill, but I think it is quite dangerous to introduce an offence into criminal law of just attempting to enter a football ground, because it is quite difficult to gather evidence of or police that. I assure the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that I do not want to delay matters much. I will keep my remarks short, because I support the general principle of the Bill. I support making it a criminal offence to actually enter a designated football match; that is in the Bill’s long title and is something we can all agree on. Widening the scope of the Bill to include attempts to enter a ground is quite dangerous. I assume that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be rejected, but I wonder whether it would unduly weaken the Bill if they were passed. After all, the Bill is about having a legal deterrent to crowds of people seeking to force their way into a football ground, but there may be many other ways in which people attempt to get into a football ground that are not riotous disorder and may be quite honest in intention. When creating criminal law, it is dangerous to get into aspects of intention—mens rea, as lawyers call it—rather than, in this case, the actual legal fact of entering a football ground. If the law were not changed, someone engaging in this bad behaviour could be punished only by ejection from the stadium, but there are criminal laws of trespass and many other ways in which this very bad behaviour can be identified. When Baroness Casey identified in her review the absence of specific offences as a weakness in stadium enforcement, I am not sure whether she was referring to such minor infringements as attempting to enter a football ground. I will say more about that in a moment. I know that the key motivation for the Bill was the Euro 2020 final and the chaos at Wembley when hundreds of ticketless individuals stormed the venue, overwhelmed stewards and endangered legitimate fans. That mass unauthorised entry posed real risks, but that was really a riot. That is quite a different situation from somebody on their own, or perhaps a father with his children, attempting to get into a football ground when they may not have a ticket. They may have been mis-sold a ticket—they may believe that they have a genuine ticket. They may have been sold, at vast cost, a ticket by a ticket tout, but apparently now they will face the full force of the criminal law. Under the Bill, police and courts will be able to ban repeat offenders, as it makes offenders eligible for football banning orders. Those are quite serious consequences for people who may not be rioters at all; they may just be genuine football fans. We are talking about a fine of up to £1,000 and a trial in a magistrates court. I know that such cases will not go to a Crown court, but that is still a very serious matter for somebody who might just be attempting to enter a place. We will be told by the Bill’s supporters that its enforcement is practical. I understand how entry into a football ground could be enforced, but I am unsure about enforcing an attempt to get into a football ground. Surely police and stewards need clarity. There is no point in us introducing more and more laws when we have a whole slate of traditional laws against riotous behaviour. Laws that may be difficult to enforce just bring the whole system into disrepute. I know that football clubs, police forces and fans’ organisations largely support the Bill, but I am not sure whether they are aware just how widely it is framed. I am sure that if they could talk these matters through with my hon. Friend, they would think his amendment was a wise and moderate compromise, because people already assume that it is an offence to enter a football ground without a ticket; I agree that the Bill removes the gap between assumption and reality. The other thing that slightly worries me is that while I can quite understand how such attempts could be dealt with by a premier league club, which has stewards and the whole panoply of a large football club, we should consider small clubs such as Gainsborough Trinity FC in my constituency. These small clubs have faced huge challenges, and we are just introducing more burdens on them. During covid, Gainsborough suspended season tickets and capped attendance at just 300. Small clubs already have to deal with many regulations and with public health. Their finances are very marginal, and covid worsened already fragile financial situations. I hope that when we consider these undoubtedly worthy Bills—as we look at the Euros, Wembley and all the rest of it—that impose more obligations on football clubs, we remember smaller clubs. The Football Association is not always as helpful as it can be with small clubs. Big clubs get attention and support, so it may well be possible for them to police attempts to enter, but it may be more difficult for a tiny club—a very worthy, important and wonderful club such as Gainsborough Trinity FC—to deal with the intricacies of the law and understand it. We are talking about enforcement and police resources, and therefore the measures in the Bill should be very moderate. There would be £1,000 fines or long banning orders. Are we going to drag people before the courts? I have already talked about the father attempting an entry. Could children or young people who sneak in without harmful intent face having a criminal record? Are we really going to do that? Is that the sort of country we want to create? We do not have a lot of data on how many attempts there are or how much unauthorised entry there is. We should acknowledge that the Euro 2020 final was exceptional. It is unclear whether making this kind of permanent legislative change, and rejecting the amendments, will solve the problem.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but I am making a point about smaller clubs. We are here because of a political reaction to the embarrassment created by one major failure, but we cannot base good law on one major failure that was on all our television screens. We have to look at all clubs and consider all the difficulties that they would have in implementing this change.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
We know that there is an epidemic of lawlessness on the underground and elsewhere. No doubt somebody will try to bring in a Bill on that as well—and good luck to them—but we are talking about a very narrow amendment and a narrowly focused Bill. I am worried about enforcement, which may vary between clubs or regions. Fans may lose trust if they see the law being applied unevenly, and I do not know how clubs will police these attempts. It is unclear whether banning orders will lead to frequent appeals. People would be tried just for an attempt. I know that that would only be in the magistrates court, but if they faced long banning orders, could there be appeals? We have to apply the law fairly and reasonably; otherwise, it risks being a blunt instrument. Surely we should try to make this sort of Bill tightly focused. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are sensible. They would better tool the legislation towards its rightful end. First, they focus on the actual harm. By removing attempted entry from the offence, the amendments would criminalise only completed unauthorised entries—clear facts that can be understood and proven. We should target behaviour that truly compromises safety and public order. Secondly, the amendments would ensure that the Bill avoids over-criminalisation. Criminalising failed or minor attempts could lead to disproportionate outcomes, especially for young people or first-time offenders. My hon. Friend’s amendments promote a more measured legal response. Thirdly, the amendments would reduce ambiguity, and the great danger in law is ambiguity. “Attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation by stewards and police. If hon. Members try to imagine the policing of a crowded football match with people pouring in, I wonder whether they would start to agree that “attempted entry” is a vague standard and may vary in interpretation. We are talking about the criminal law. We are talking not just about somebody being ticked off or told they cannot enter the stadium but possibly ending up in court. The amendments would give a clear legal threshold for enforcement and prosecution, on the basis of which somebody can be tried and sentenced in the courts.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
I am so grateful to you, Mr Speaker; you will be grateful to hear that having made those remarks, I am drawing to a conclusion. We have a duty to ensure that punishment is based on actual misconduct in entering a football ground, not suspicion or misjudged behaviour. Fifthly, my hon. Friend’s amendments would allow for practical enforcement. Focusing on completed unauthorised entry would help police and clubs concentrate their resources on the most serious breaches, rather than chasing marginal cases. The amendments would provide necessary implementation time. The two-month delay before commencement gives football clubs, police and stewards time to prepare for the new legal framework, reducing confusion and aiding smooth enforcement. Finally, the amendments would encourage propor-tionality. They keep the law from becoming an unnecessarily blunt instrument and instead preserve a proportionate, targeted response to genuine requests.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “or attempts to enter”.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Many people watching and observing proceedings in Parliament will wonder whether we have our priorities right. The Bill is about unauthorised entry to football matches in particular circumstances, but I think most people are much more concerned about the proliferation of unauthorised entry into our very country, and the failure of the Home Office and its officials to do anything effective about it. In my submission, the Bill is a trivialisation of legislation by Home Office officials who should be doing other things—but I will not dwell on that now, Mr Speaker. The long title of the Bill states that its purpose is to “Create an offence of unauthorised entry at football matches for which a football banning order can be imposed following conviction.” However, it is about not just unauthorised entry but any attempt at unauthorised entry. My amendments are designed to exclude from the Bill provisions relating to attempts to enter. Such attempts are less important than actual unlawful entry, and to include them in the same category is disproportionate and unreasonable. When we come on to debate other parts of the Bill on Third Reading, points can be made about the Bill more generally, but it seems to me that someone attempting to enter a football match without authorisation should not be subject to the same penalties, as set out in the Bill, as people who actually succeed in getting into a football match. Actually, 11 July is quite an interesting date. On this very day four years ago the 2020 Euros final at Wembley stadium resulted in the unauthorised entry of thousands of fans, which caused a lot of disorder. Baroness Casey, who is an expert on producing reports, was commissioned by the Football Association to look into that issue and come forward with recommendations. In her report, which spanned more than 100 pages, she emphasised the fact that much of the disorder was nothing to do with people coming in without tickets and tailgating; in fact, a lot of it was attributed to other failures to enforce the law, in particular the taking of drugs and alcohol on public transport in London, which is verboten, and the taking of drugs in the vicinity of a football match, which should also be forbidden but was allowed to proceed with impunity. She also made the point that unlike at many football matches, what happened at Wembley was largely exacerbated by the inadequacy of the stewarding arrangements. As a result of Baroness Casey’s report, the Home Office decided to bring forward this Bill. However, nowhere could I find in the report any reference to the fact that Baroness Casey wanted to treat attempts to enter in exactly the same way as entering, which is why I have put forward these amendments. There is no need to expand on that except to say that it is in common law. Normally, an attempt to commit a criminal offence is an inchoate action, which can itself be the subject of criminal proceedings; in those circumstances, there would be no need to have this provision written into the Bill. It seems to me that the provisions would create a penalty that is quite severe; it could affect people’s ability to go and watch football matches for many years into the future. The presumption under the Bill—as you will know, Mr Speaker—is that if someone is guilty of an offence, they will be unable to go to football matches again as a spectator. My assessment is that that is disproportionate and unnecessary. For those reasons, I strongly oppose this aspect of the Bill, and seek through these amendments to remove references to “attempts”. Amendment 6 is another example of where we need to try to tighten up private Members’ Bills when they are brought before this House, so that the Government do not have everything their own way. Members will know that there are four other Bills to be debated on Report this morning. All those other Bills have a commencement date, but clause 2(2) of this Bill says: “This Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.” The question I ask is: why? Why is that necessary? Why can we not in this very simple Bill say that these provisions will come into effect either on the day of Royal Assent or within two months of that date? That would be the norm. What sometimes happens, of course, is that the Government give themselves powers and do all the talk about supporting Bills such as this, and then never bring forward the regulations. The consequence of not having a specific timetable is that the ball is very much—to use that expression—in the Government’s court, because they can decide whether they will implement the provisions of this Bill, which has been put forward by the Home Office. I hope that when the Minister responds to this debate, he will explain why the Bill has to be introduced by regulations on a date yet to be specified. Of course, the making of regulations is in itself a further unnecessary administrative burden. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to why the Bill is being treated differently from the other Bills the Government are hoping will get through today.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for the diligence with which she has approached this subject, including having discussed it on several occasions with me. She says that instead of a date being specified in the Bill, regulations will be passed to bring in the provisions at the beginning of the football season. When is that? Is there a particular date?
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
There is a big issue with attempted tailgating to avoid paying fares on the London underground. What does my right hon. Friend think about the Bill, in comparison with what is happening on the underground?
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
The Minister says that the Bill will come into force before the start of the football season. We heard from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) that the season will start pretty soon, within four or five weeks. I assume that means the Bill will not be implemented until summer 2026—that is the clear implication of what the Minister said. If I am wrong in that interpretation, I hope he will intervene, because it is important to get it on the record that the Bill will not be in force until a year’s time. On the issue of attempts, listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I thought that I had under-egged the pudding a bit, because he adduced a whole lot of extra arguments that reinforce the case for removing attempts from the Bill. Apart from anything else, I fear that if we allow attempts to remain in the Bill, the people who are still outside the stadium and never got in will be the easy pickings—they will be the ones who get arrested and penalised, while the mass of offenders who got in without authority will get away with it—because in order for any of this to work, there has to be an arrest and a subsequent prosecution. I wish to test the will of the House in relation to amendment 1. Question put, That the amendment be made.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Will the hon. Lady give way?
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
rose—
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is an improvement on its predecessor, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for that, because it allows the defence to which she referred in her earlier remarks, and that is better. I regret that she would not accept the amendments that would have removed the attempt issues, but I must say I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this Bill would be replicated more widely in other Bills. Would that be in relation to Wimbledon or Twickenham? It seems to me that the mischief being addressed in this Bill is peculiar to soccer supporters. I am not sure about the suggestion that we need to go more widely to deal with this type of hooligan behaviour. I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, and I have never experienced the sort of problems to which she was referring. When I was at university, I can remember the first football match I ever went to, which was at Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground. The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. Then, when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was a frequent visitor to the Dell. Again, I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of policing to enable that to happen. That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, because the burden of policing soccer matches was not borne only by the local constabulary and its taxpayers, but also by the club itself. As Baroness Casey’s report makes clear, the Wembley incident that prompted the Bill was essentially a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances, including that we were still during the period of covid, which meant a severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. Other problems were created due to the absence of experienced stewards and so on. I remember asking the hon. Member for Amber Valley why provisions in this Bill would not be included in the Football Governance Bill, which was discussed earlier in the week. She said that although these provisions could have been included in that Bill, because of her legal experience she particularly wanted to have a Bill in her name on the statue book. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled, as that is an important matter for her. I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground. I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said on Report, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them. As I said earlier, the Home Office has responsibility for all this, but every day we find that it is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities, let alone new ones that will be placed on it as a result of this Bill. Most recently, the Home Office revealed that it is unable even to record the number of people who have entered this country and then left. Obviously, the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas is to check the visa records when people leave. The Home Office cannot even deal with that. We are talking about extending its role in the belief that some magic new Bill will control unauthorised entry to football stadiums, when the Home Office cannot even control our country’s borders. I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. It is a pity, in a sense, that the private Member’s Bill process is giving rise to this sort of legislation, which is—I return to the word I used earlier—relatively trivial compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced and with which this legislature should be dealing.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
There are already laws against killing people at football matches. There are already laws against criminal damage. There are already laws against violent behaviour. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has looked at Baroness Casey’s report on the incident at Wembley in 2021, but it says that the issue of tailgating highlighted by the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not the only problem. There was also lots of drunken behaviour—
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is in Baroness Casey’s report—she finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drug taking. Those are criminal offences. The expression on the hon. Lady’s face makes it seem as though either she believes that Baroness Casey’s findings were incorrect or she has some other reason for disagreeing with that. I think that bringing the criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences covering these issues is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in the minority on that.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Of course I will give way.
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Pardon?
- Hansard source
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) says he has no interest in this Bill, then he does not have to attend. I thought he was seeking to intervene, but he was not; he was wanting to make some sedentary remark. I have put on the record my opposition to and scepticism about the contents of this Bill, and I will leave it at that.
- Hansard source
Rare Cancers Bill
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “and”.
- Hansard source
Rare Cancers Bill
This is certainly not a trivial Bill; it is a really important piece of legislation, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) on introducing and pioneering. It was not a Government handout; it was an idea that he thought needed to be the subject of legislation and he has pursued it. We had a fantastic Second Reading debate. There is tremendous interest in the Bill. May I therefore make it clear at the outset that my amendments are designed to try to strengthen the Bill rather than anything else? I explained my position to the hon. Gentleman yesterday. He said, understandably, that to a large extent he was constrained, because he was trying to negotiate with the Government and with the Department of Health and Social Care, and unless he showed himself to be reasonably compliant, he would not have got the Bill to a state where it could be accepted by the Government. I note the different positions on this, and I fully understand and respect the hon. Gentleman’s position. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) basically said that if she had introduced such a Bill, she would have got so steamed up about it that she would have included a lot more strength and safeguards, and as a consequence it probably would not have got anywhere near being considered on Report. Those are two different approaches. I am, relatively speaking, neutral on the matter—I am a sympathetic supporter of the Bill—but I have a lot of background experience of how Governments always try to give themselves wriggle room, in effect to maintain control over everything, and in my view the Bill could be improved by being amended, with the will of the House, on Report. We could talk about taking some of my amendments to the other place, but the trouble is that the Government machine may say that there will not be any more sitting Fridays in this House, so if the Bill were to be amended in the other place it might fall completely, because it would need to be brought back here. That is why it is important that the House should consider these amendments now rather than leave them to the other place. Amendment 1, which is to be read with amendment 2, is a prime example of the point I made earlier. We have a commitment from the Government that: “The Secretary of State must…carry out a review of the law relating to marketing authorisations for orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancer”— great— “and…prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.” But what is the timescale for that, and what will happen after those conclusions are produced? There is no obligation on the Government to do anything else. The review and its conclusions could be just left on one side. We in the House are in a position to tighten those provisions up and say, “This is not good enough. There should be a timetable for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review.” That is the essence of the two amendments. To look at another gap that could be exploited by the Government, the Bill says that the report must be “published before the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed”. I have tabled amendment 4 to say that the period should be two years. In respect of both those points, I have had a helpful email from Diana Jupp from Pancreatic Cancer UK, who writes on behalf of more than 30 charities representing patients affected by rare and less common cancers. She comments on my amendments. On amendment 2, she says, “We are keen to push for this change with the Department once we reach implementation stage of the Bill.” With the greatest of respect to Diana Jupp, we can do this now. Instead of leaving it to her and her colleagues to try to pressurise the Department later, we in this House have the power to change the legislation in the way that I have suggested, so that there would be a timetable set out for implementing the changes in the law recommended by the review. In response to amendment 4, Diana Jupp says that “this timeline has been agreed with the Department and in our opinion would tie into the timelines of other developing cancer policy implementation, including the cancer plan.” Obviously, the most important part of her comment is that the timeline has been agreed with the Department, because if it had not been, the Department and the Minister would not have taken the Bill forward in this way and agreed to it. On the timeline, I draw the House’s attention to the evidence base set out in the impact assessment. It says that the whole process will take one year. The Department reckons that it will cost £130,000 and sets out how many full-time equivalent civil servants will be involved in it. If it will only take one year, why are we saying that it needs to have three years? That is an example of why we need to tighten up the Bill, because if this is a review that needs to and will be carried out, why do we not get on with it? To suggest that it will take longer than a year is to go against the Department’s own evidence set out in the impact assessment. The impact assessment says on page 6, under the heading “Mandating a Government review of the orphan drug regulations”: “This will place a duty on the Government to publish a review which will be a comparison of orphan drug Regulations (specifically Part 5 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012) and international regulatory approaches to supporting the research and development of orphan medicinal products that are for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of cancers. Since the review is concerned with orphan drug regulations it is by default covering rare cancers. The findings should be published within 3 years.” On page 7, paragraph 19 on financial costs says, “It is difficult to estimate the resourcing costs required for the orphan drug review, since the exact scope remains to be agreed. However, we estimate the cost to the Department of Health and Social Care to produce and publish a report on orphan drug Regulations to incur costs of approximately £0.14m in relation to staff resource. This reflects the cost of 0.3 x SCS staff, 1 x FTE Grade 6 or Grade 7 staff, 0.3 x Grade 7 staff and 0.5 x SEO staff for one year.” That is what the Government say: only one year will be necessary. In that case, why is my generous amendment, which would restrict the period from three years to two years, unacceptable to the Government? There is a history of dragging of feet at the Department of Health and Social Care, I am afraid; we certainly heard about that on Second Reading. I give the House that specific example of why, on the Government’s own evidence, they should accept the change from three years to two. Amendment 3 would leave out “in particular” from line 7, which reads: “In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider regulatory approaches in other countries.” The amendment is intended to probe rather than anything else. Why do the words “in particular” need to be incorporated? Surely it would be simpler to say that the Secretary of State “must consider regulatory approaches in other countries”—full stop, period. But that is not how it is at the moment. Amendment 5 would leave out the reference to the Secretary of State. This is to do with the definition of a rare cancer. Currently, clause 2 would add this wording to the National Health Service Act 2006: “The research that the Secretary must facilitate or otherwise promote under subsection (1)(a) includes research into cancers that in the opinion of the Secretary of State are rare cancers.” Why cannot it not just say “that are rare cancers”? Indeed, clause 2 would also add this wording to the 2006 Act: “In this section ‘rare cancer’ means a cancer that affects not more than 1 in 2000 people in the United Kingdom.” That is an issue of fact. The Secretary of State should not be able to basically have a veto over the interpretation of what is or is not a rare cancer. This is just another example of the control freakery within the Department. I am sorry that so far the Minister does not seem to have stood up to officials who have persuaded him, no doubt, that we need the expression “in the opinion of the Secretary of State”. Again, the argument is quite straightforward and the people from Pancreatic Cancer UK are on my side, but they are obviously very keen for the Bill to get on to the statute book. We all have to recognise that it is within the Government’s power to prevent it from making any further progress. That is why it will be quite difficult, I suppose, to persuade the Minister to accept amendment 5. Amendment 6 would leave out from “are” to the end of the line and insert “arrangements in place to” in this statement in clause 2: “In discharging the duty under subsection (1)(a) in relation to those cancers, the Secretary of State must, in particular, ensure that there are such arrangements in place as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to”. Why can we not just say “arrangements in place to enable potential participants in clinical trials”, and so on? Why do we need to give the Secretary of State discretion —a veto, essentially—over whether he considers those arrangements to be appropriate? It seems to me completely redundant, unnecessary and, indeed, oppressive. It is counter to the expressed wishes of this House on Second Reading, when there was impatience over the delay, because of the need to get on with this, and suspicion over the failure of the Department of Health and Social Care—under not just this Government but previous Governments, which I would be the first to accept—to actually deal with the crisis involving people who are subject to rare cancers. That is amendment 6. I am trying to beetle through these amendments quite quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that other people can participate in this important debate.
- Hansard source
Rare Cancers Bill
I hear what the hon. Member is saying, but why does the impact assessment say that the costs are for staff for only one year? If the review will take three years, why are the staff funded for only one?
- Hansard source
Rare Cancers Bill
I am not quite sure whether my hon. Friend is responding to the amendments or making a Third Reading speech. I hope he will address the amendments I have tabled, including those that relate to clause 1, about which he has just spoken.