Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
Perhaps then we can turn the tables and see Conservatives benefit from Labour’s hard work, rather than the other way around.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,578 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other point he makes is that, when we do these events, it is often one individual city or one particular location that gets a lot of the focus. There seems to be a trend at the moment, which I quite like, of <span id="534" class="column-number" data-column-number="534"></span>having multiple venues and often multiple countries, even when hosting major international events—we saw that this year with the world cup. We have often bid on a four-nations basis, which can be beneficial, and we will continue to do so. That goes back to the point that the economic benefit can be so considerable that it is great if we can spread it outside the M25. It is important that we do that. I do not want to be negative about London—we have amazing sports venues in London—but we always need to think about London-plus, if London is the anchor. As the former Sport Minister who oversaw the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I am familiar with, and therefore welcome, many of the framework provisions that go deep into the weeds of event organisation on matters such as ticket sales, unauthorised advertising, brand protection, transport logistics and so on. Previously, they had to be considered in discreet Bills for each and every event, which clearly does not make sense. The basic logic for this Bill is therefore sensible. Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are some changes that we would like to see, along the lines of what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. In particular, many in the Lords expressed a concern that the definition of “events” used in the Bill initially seemed to cover way too narrow a group. I therefore appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments. Indeed, I remember us having a conversation about the matter at Silverstone and how there is some logic to including many of the important domestic events. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that does not necessarily mean everything all the time, but we can pick and choose elements of the Bill. That always causes complexities in such Bills, because it can cause some challenges, so we probably need to build in some flexibility. I am sure that, later on, as we go through the Bill’s stages, we will be able to work that out. There is a clear and strong feeling on behalf of the major domestic sporting events that were mentioned—Wimbledon, the grand prix and so on—that we do right by them and, quite frankly, make it easier for Government in dealing with those things. Again, let us just use a hefty dose of common sense. There are a couple of other sport-related matters, which I would like to raise, that should be considered in the wider context of the Bill, and I would genuinely appreciate the Minister’s views on those in her closing comments. She will be aware of speculation about allowing alcohol sales at football games. The Conservatives introduced an amendment to the Football Governance Act 2025—I say “the Conservatives”, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is sitting on the Front Bench—for a consultation on lifting the alcohol ban in top-tier football. Unfortunately, despite a lot of agreement cross-party, that amendment was shot down by the then Labour Government. Will the Minister now reconsider that, and is the Bill an appropriate vehicle or opportunity for that consideration? For example, would alcohol sales be restricted at some of the events that we talk about in the Bill? Similarly, are the Government reconsidering the 3 pm blackout rule? That is nothing to do with the Bill, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot. I also want to touch on something that has been mentioned before, which is the listed events regime. Is that being reviewed, particularly in the context of the <span id="535" class="column-number" data-column-number="535"></span>events being considered in the Bill? If there is Government support for hosting an event and taxpayers’ money is being put into it, there is a reasonable expectation that attendance and viewing of that event should be maximised in-country to maximise the overall benefit and inspiration that these things can provide. Is this therefore a good time to reconsider the listed events regime, particularly for events supported with taxpayers’ money and held in the home nations? BBC Sport’s fantastic coverage of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games achieved record-breaking audiences on TV, streaming and online. I was fortunate, as the Ministers were, to attend the Glasgow Commonwealth games this year. The city and the organisers put on a fantastic show, particularly given the circumstances of how the games came about, which I think most people are familiar with. It was a deliberately smaller-scale event than the Birmingham games, and although the coverage on TNT Sports and Channel 5 was good, it did not get the breadth of coverage and therefore achieve the level of awareness in-country that we would have had, for example, had the BBC or another major broadcaster secured those rights. That raises questions about what the BBC is bidding for and how much it is bidding. That is definitely a debate for another day, though an important one. I will end there by confirming that I broadly support the Bill and I certainly look forward to engaging constructively with Ministers as it goes through its remaining stages. I hope we will see some amendments supported by all parties.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Let us speed up business questions a little bit, so everybody can get in.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Sporting a new look, David Reed.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Is the Leader of the House not going to attempt to town cry now?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Dr Peter Prinsley, you are not in your normal seat.
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
The Secretary State mentioned mandatory housing targets. Under Labour’s targets, in south Essex—from Grays across to Shoeburyness—we are expected to accommodate more than 100,000 houses. That is 7% of the Government’s entire 1.5 million target in one half of one county alone. That is despite the fact that our medical infrastructure, our sewage capacity and in particular our roads—the A13 and the A127 are maxed out as it is—simply cannot cope, even now. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Labour Members can chunter all they want. Why is Labour so determined to cover south Essex in concrete and gridlock our roads, purely for ideological reasons?
- Hansard source
Access to Sport: Poorer Families
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Making sport more accessible should be the ultimate goal of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and that is why we continue to urge the Government to stop raising taxes on sports clubs and to ensure that all sports, and especially female sports, champion fairness and safety. The Conservative party is clear: all UK sports and their governing bodies must follow the law when it comes to biological sex and ensure that there is a level playing field for female athletes to compete. Will the Government match the Conservative party’s commitment to women’s sport and remove public funding from sports bodies that refuse to follow the law?
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
The Secretary of State failed to recommit to the 1.5 million new homes pledge in Labour’s manifesto. She also failed to mention the almost £5 billion that was provided to the Mayor of London by the previous Conservative Government and the fact that this Labour Government have been forced to cut the mayor’s housing target, given his poor record of delivery here in London. One way that the Secretary of State can help improve London’s family housing crisis is by giving local councils more powers to stop bad HMOs. They are destroying family housing in communities across the capital, particularly in outer London. Will she commit to that today?
- Hansard source
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also put on record, because the Secretary of State has not, my delight that my old club, the London Broncos, won silverware at the weekend. London beating the north at their own sport—it was a fantastic sight to watch—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> The Secretary of State is really enjoying that! But let me start seriously by saying that the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction for major sporting events across the UK. I thank hon. Members from across both Houses for their contributions to the debates on the Bill so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) for his fantastic championing of DCMS over many years—I know he will continue to do that—and for putting up with me for the past 12 months. As we all know, major sporting events make a substantial social and economic contribution to our country and, more often than not, the journey from bidding stage to delivery spans across Governments, so it is vital that we get this right and seek to work constructively wherever possible. It is notable that the turquoise goal hangers have not even turned up for this major debate, despite making references in the press about hosting events in the future—it is not the first time that has happened, Madam Deputy Speaker.<span id="541" class="column-number" data-column-number="541"></span> In an increasingly competitive international bidding environment, the Bill should help the UK to attract more events and allow those we already stage to be more successful. I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted some of the amendments made in the other place, particularly by expanding the scope of the Bill to a wider range of major sporting events, including those taking place on a regular basis. The objective of the Bill should be to streamline the bidding and delivery aspects of hosting major sporting events. That is a principle that we can support, because as Conservatives we believe fundamentally that Britain succeeds when the Government get out of the way. I could provide many sporting examples to highlight that point, but in the interests of time I will highlight just three. First, although football is not without its issues—we have discussed that on many occasions—our domestic football competitions such as the premier league and the English football league continue to lead the world in attracting investment and fans from across the world. We should never apologise for that success, nor forget why British football continues to deliver billions of inward investment and champion our soft power across the world. The success of football across the UK, but particularly in England, also means that we are well placed for future bids with our stadiums and supporting infrastructure such as training bases. The recent example of the Barcelona men’s team training at St George’s Park highlights again what a fantastic facility it is. It will continue to support new and existing coaches and, I hope, further success on the pitch for England’s national teams. I would also like to put on record my thanks to our football associations for their ongoing leadership work both at home and overseas in very challenging circumstances, as we have sadly seen again this summer with the ongoing FIFA saga. Such diplomatic skills will continue to be vital for any future bids to host competitions, and I thank officials for their ongoing work. Secondly, I will briefly mention Formula 1, and the commercial vision and leadership that, like the premier league, continues to put the UK at the top of the international podium. Formula 1’s success embodies the very best of international competition and sports science, creating fantastic jobs and investment across Britain that stretches far beyond the grand prix weekend, as I saw again on a recent visit to the Formula 1 media centre in Biggin Hill. The third example is the national lottery, one of the greatest Conservative legacies, which has allowed UK Sport, with the support of lottery players, to transform our athletic success across multiple sports. Gone are the days when a more state-controlled approach to sport saw us languish in the middle tables. This is another area where we will seek to continue to work constructively with the Government to ensure that funding for sport is maximised. From the premier league to Formula 1, the Open, the London marathon, Wimbledon and beyond, our nation’s sporting heritage is rich and continues to lead the world. In fact, I cannot see why events like the British grand prix at Silverstone, the Open or the London marathon were excluded from the remit of the Bill in the first place. These events provide an incredible return on investment for this country, with independent assessments already anticipating that Euro 2028 will generate over <span id="542" class="column-number" data-column-number="542"></span>£3.2 billion of social economic benefits for the UK and Ireland between 2028 and 2031. That is the equivalent of approximately £5.74 of benefit for every £1 invested. It is therefore welcome that the Government have accepted the amendments in the other place to allow the benefits of the Bill and the subsequent framework to be extended to events that already benefit this country. However, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) set out, and many noble Lords made clear throughout the passage of the Bill in the other place, there are still serious questions that need to be addressed on the Government’s approach to major events. First, why have the Government tabled a Bill to support hosting major sporting events when their own major events strategy, which has been promised, is still unpublished? Does the Minister not see that the Bill should be part of that strategy and that they are at risk of putting the cart before the horse? Secondly, the Bill fails to address major fiscal and regulatory concerns outlined by organisers of major events. They include proposals by the Home Office to charge for policing services, the implementation of Martyn’s law, increasing employment costs, higher business rates and the Care Quality Commission’s new regulations. On CQC regulation, I know the sporting events sector has already had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC on an exemption for those who provide medical services for athletes, performers and officials, but, as we have seen for the past two years, Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle and provide urgent clarity to the sector. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister please now make sure that they or their ministerial colleagues provide confirmation and clarity on the introduction of the exemption as soon as possible, so that major sporting events are not negatively delayed or impacted by unintended consequences? We have also heard from our constituents about the increased costs for businesses under successive Labour Governments. That is no different for those who host major sporting events. The Prime Minister might be able to afford his Everton season ticket, but there are many out there who will no longer be able to afford to watch their beloved teams thanks to the increased costs being piled on to clubs across the country. We have heard already about the impact of changes to events that are televised on national TV for free. This is an ongoing challenge that sports are facing; it is having direct consequences for fans across the country, whether they seek to watch sport in person or at home. Not only have the Government saddled organisers with more costs in the form of minimum wage increases, national insurance increases, business rates increases and energy costs; now the Home Office is threatening to increase the cost of policing these kinds of events. A joined-up Government approach would see a guarantee that our major sporting events benefit from policing services in the same way as every other sector of the economy, and ensure that they are not forced to pay again for public services that they have already paid for through high levels of taxation. Will the Secretary of State commit to making sure that no extra police charges will be imposed on sporting events, and to making sure that if the Government proceed in this way, an impact assessment of the ability of those events to swallow such costs is published as soon as possible?<span id="543" class="column-number" data-column-number="543"></span> More broadly, this Government’s words on sports are not being matched by their actions, as we have seen and heard today. I hope that the new Prime Minister changes direction on this, because we all know that having a good strategy is one thing—and this Bill will make it easier to deliver such events—but the country will miss out if we do not address some of the sporting cuts that have been made over the past two years, particularly at the grassroots. It is future generations that will miss out on being inspired if we do not host such events. Since this Labour Government came in two years ago, they have cut £57 million from the opening school facilities fund, £127 million a year from the primary school PE and sport premium, £35 million from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, and £25 million in real terms from grassroots sports investment, compared with the previous Conservative Government. This is not a good record, and it is our sports and our grassroots facilities that are paying the price. While in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, including an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport and £300 million of emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. Perhaps the programme we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium; introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics, it was worth £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and has totalled almost £3.5 billion, directly for schools, since we introduced it in 2013. This summer of sport was built on the legacy of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, the 2015 rugby world cup, the 2019 cricket world cup, the 2020 men’s Euro final and the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, to name just a few of the incredible events that have taken place. However, if the Government continue down this path of not funding sport properly, I am afraid there will be less money for future generations and the future stars we so need. As I have said, I sincerely hope that the Government help this Department to change the direction that we have seen it take over the past two years. To conclude, this Bill is a welcome move for elite sport and major international events, and we will work constructively to try to improve it as it passes through the Commons. However, this Labour Government must change direction. They must reduce costs for all levels of sport; otherwise, we will lose our seat at the top table of international sport, and the next generation will not benefit from hosting such major, incredible events.
- Hansard source
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
We are willing to work constructively on this issue. Can we also ensure that there is significant flexibility for events such as Wimbledon, just to name one? A lot of residents who live nearby suffer the parking stress that we heard about from colleagues. During such events, people normally hire out driveways, which helps with parking capacity. Will there be enough flexibility in the legislation to allow that kind of thing to carry on?
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Front Bench; the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee looks forward to scrutinising her in due course. As she will be aware, South West Hertfordshire has beautiful green-belt land, and she will have seen press reports about unauthorised clearance of sites over the last bank holiday weekend. While some of these clearances may be legal and lawful, my constituents consistently have concerns about the lack of information, and worry that when bulldozers and tree-clearing equipment turns up on a Saturday morning, council officers are not available until the following Tuesday, after the bank holiday weekend. What more can the Secretary of State and her Department do to make sure that my residents do not have that fear?
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is a pleasure to see her again so soon. I join her in thanking those involved in the response to this summer’s wildfires, and applauding their remarkable courage. The Secretary of State is right to note that for far too many people across the country the sense of decline runs deep. In far too many places, organised criminals have taken over the high street, and in far too many cases, a place to sleep is something that people cannot take for granted. The stories I have been told by constituents who have experienced rough sleeping or unsafe housing remain some of the most challenging and profound I have heard since coming to this place. Although the Secretary of State talks about a new political and economic model, I am afraid that what we have heard today is a recipe for more of the same. While her focus on the scourge of organised crime on the high street is welcome, I am concerned that she addresses a symptom of the problem but not the underlying cause. While many bookies, vape shops and high street casinos are clearly legitimate, their cash intensiveness and lower overhead costs make them particularly attractive as fronts for money laundering. However, if those businesses are closed, criminals will simply find other types of high street businesses through which to launder money. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with her Home Office colleagues on dealing with organised crime? The right hon. Lady talks about the devolution of power and resources to local people, but what she really means is more politicians being given the power to increase the size of the state and raise taxes, but never to let people keep more of their own money or to interfere less in their lives. Will she confirm whether any tax raising powers devolved to mayors will be accompanied by powers to reduce tax—and if not, why not? Similarly, while the right hon. Lady is right to recognise the vital importance of addressing the housing affordability crisis, the answer cannot be spending ever more taxpayers’ money. Instead, the state must stop making it so difficult and so expensive to get new houses built in the places where people want to live. A greater supply of homes in those places will mean lower costs for everybody, particularly those who are renting and those looking to get on the housing ladder. In London, where our housing crisis is most acute, Labour has been in power for over a decade. Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts fell to their lowest <span id="505" class="column-number" data-column-number="505"></span>level ever in 2024-25. Construction began on just 4,000 homes across our capital. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour’s London mayor has failed to get to grips with this problem? Will the changes she proposes actually solve the housing crisis in the capital? If not, it is a little difficult to understand why she is introducing them. Finally, on homelessness and rough sleeping, we share the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that the new Prime Minister promised to do exactly that in his 2017 manifesto for the Greater Manchester mayoralty. His pledge was to end rough sleeping within three years. In fact, rough sleeping in Greater Manchester has increased every year since 2021, including in 2024-25 when the Labour party was also in power nationally. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why the Prime Minister failed to solve rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, bearing in mind that it increased when both the local authority and the national Government were run by the Labour party? Can she explain why anybody should believe that he will be able to do so nationally?
- Hansard source
Bluetongue Virus in Livestock
Bluetongue is causing considerable concern among livestock farmers in Scotland and the Scottish Borders, with cases increasing and restrictions affecting livestock movements at a critical time of year. Indeed, the important Kelso ram sales are due to take place next week in <span id="472" class="column-number" data-column-number="472"></span>my constituency. Given the substantial movement of sheep and cattle across the Scotland-England border, what discussions is the Minister having with the Scottish Government to ensure that vaccination, testing and movement rules are properly co-ordinated across Great Britain and do not create unnecessary barriers for farmers?
- Hansard source
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the process, and I respect that. But most people who take a pretty level-headed, pragmatic view of the need for a transition over time still cannot get their heads around the short-term reality: when we have so much turmoil in the middle east, why would we extend the time that we are not relying on our own available resources? Also, speaking as a member of the Treasury Committee, when it would generate £1 billion to £2 billion of VAT receipts alone, and given the severe impact on the economy of the north-east of Scotland of not doing so, can the decision not be made more quickly based on principled guidance from this Government?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
It is 55 days till the Budget. Given the market’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday, and given that our gilt rates are higher than those of our peers in the G7, could we have a debate on the implications of higher taxes for growth? Given that the Prime Minister says that he will stick to the previous Prime Minister’s borrowing rules, I think the country is very concerned that we are at grave risk of higher taxes, which will compound the problem that he is trying to fix.
- Hansard source
Bluetongue Virus in Livestock
The midges that spread bluetongue are no respecters of the border, or of the fact that devolved issues are sent to Holyrood for consideration in Scotland. As we have heard, there are difficulties with cross-border movement—it is a huge issue—and I have also been told that in the initial stages of this outbreak, the Animal and Plant Health Agency reacted in Scotland with all the alacrity of a tranquilised sloth. The Minister has warm words about talking with his equivalent in Scotland, but we need action on the ground; there are real difficulties now, particularly with these sales coming along.
- Hansard source
Tourism Industry
<Question HRSContentId="{87D28D59-548C-44DF-A2BA-1235721EDD22}">8. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{119F67B3-1746-446C-AF36-4E39AE1567C9}">What steps her Department is taking to support the tourism industry.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Tourism Industry
Growth in tourism requires an increase in visitor numbers so that more money is spent on the high street, not a new tax. Oxford Economics says that the cost of the overnight visitor levy will be around £1.8 billion in reduced spending, and a decrease in tax receipts, not an increase. Will the Minister confirm that the visitor economy growth strategy will consider the harm caused by the new tourism tax, and say when it will be published?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives. Truly, we live in a world of change. Rather unexpectedly, we have a new Government, a new Prime Minister and a reshuffle on the Treasury Bench and among the Opposition. Amid all that risk and uncertainty, I am delighted to say that there has been one beacon of stability, one oasis of calm and one single unmoving axel at the still centre of our politics: I refer, of course, to the Leader of the House and myself. Each of us has emerged phoenix-like, blinking but resolute from the ashes of political reconstruction. I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics. I will not invite the House to say which of us is which, but I will simply say to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members returning from recess, it is hello from me and it is hello from him. Now to more serious matters. I invite the Leader of the House to clarify where the Government stand on defence spending, given the different briefings and public challenges that the Government and the Prime Minister have received over the past two weeks.<span id="479" class="column-number" data-column-number="479"></span> I also have two specific questions, the first of which is about restoration and renewal. The Government have had since February to table a motion on this topic. In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action. Will the Government now recognise the delay and use it to give the R and R team time to develop a sane and far less costly alternative? My second question is about an issue at the very heart of the new Government: the status and functions of No. 10 North. As the House knows well, in our system of Government, a Prime Minister may have political power but No. 10 is not a spending Department and it does not possess independent fiscal authority, yet the new Prime Minister has insisted again and again that No. 10 North will not just be a paper exercise. You see the difficulty, Mr Speaker. Will No. 10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it. After all, in this scenario the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be fully in charge of the public finances. We will have to have new forms of accountability to this House, with a No. 10 North Select Committee and Question Time, so that Members can press the First Secretary of State, or perhaps the Prime Minister, as the ultimately responsible Minister, should the spending decisions that No. 10 North takes turn out as they plan or, indeed, as they do not plan. However, if the answer is no, and No. 10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government. It does not feel like the Government have thought this issue through at all, so I would be grateful for answers to these questions, both now from the Leader of the House and in writing from the First Secretary of State.
- Hansard source
Overnight Visitor Levy: Rural and Coastal Communities
<Question HRSContentId="{3513728C-1A0F-4530-BE47-F9A79F5C41C2}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{B319BEDB-C7EF-45A0-AAFB-73BDE5E3299D}">What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of an overnight visitor levy on rural and coastal communities.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Overnight Visitor Levy: Rural and Coastal Communities
Rural and coastal communities are particularly reliant on seasonal tourism. If Members look at my registered interests, they will see that I used to run one of those businesses. Do the Government not understand that it is already tough enough out there, without them thinking up a new tax on holidays? Instead of ploughing on regardless, will the Government commit to publishing an independent assessment on the impact on businesses before any new tax is introduced?
- Hansard source
Tourism Industry
The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?
- Hansard source
Lighthouse Summer Holiday Programme
<Question HRSContentId="{CB8F68BB-2523-4E7B-9923-CBA0A3CD63E4}">5. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{CB0BE7B6-1F5B-4AF7-8A6C-064EEDDDC947}">What steps the Church of England is taking to support the Lighthouse summer holiday programme.</QuestionText> </Question>
- Hansard source
Lighthouse Summer Holiday Programme
Over the summer, I was delighted to visit Lighthouse Princes Risborough for both its opening and closing ceremonies. It welcomed 450 local children over a week for fun activities, with a lot of chaos—I may have been gunged in the closing ceremony—but all underpinned by Christian teaching. Similar schemes run in Great Missenden and Haddenham, too. Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking Eleyna Kibble and her massive team of volunteers, trustees and church leaders for putting on such an incredible programme? More fundamentally, what is the Church doing centrally to underpin and support community-led and church-led programmes such as this?
- Hansard source
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
How does the Secretary of State square what she said in the statement about wanting to “put power in every postcode”<span id="516" class="column-number" data-column-number="516"></span> with the reality of what her Government are doing to Buckinghamshire? They have increased our housing target by 43%—while letting London off some of its target—but if we had power locally, we would categorically not choose to build. They have also been telling Buckinghamshire council that if it turns down too many planning applications and actually supports the residents of Buckinghamshire, it will have its planning powers taken away. That is not putting power into every postcode; that is central diktat, isn’t it?
- Hansard source
Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on bringing forward this important debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I would normally go through some of the powerful contributions we have had today, but it would take all my allocated time to namecheck everyone’s constituencies. Basically, the take-home message has been the importance of protecting our precious planet from the existential threats that we face from climate change. Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems is very close to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents, and it is crucial to national security. As the MP for Epping Forest, I am privileged to see and experience the many benefits of biodiversity in our ancient woodland and beyond. As the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, Epping Forest hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees and is home to 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 15,000 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. I want the flora and fauna of Epping Forest and more widely to flourish and thrive, yet water security, air quality and climate change—to name just three risks—threaten biodiversity and ecosystems domestically and globally. That is why the report we are debating today is an important wake-up call. The last Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including to increase species abundance, so that by 2042 it is greater than 2022 and at least 10% greater than 2032, and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. Our Conservative environment improvement plan built on that Act, committing to protect 30% of our land and our sea by 2030. Supporting the COP15 global target, we agreed to protect 30% of global land and global ocean. The security assessment we are debating, published by the current Government in January this year, outlined the immense risk that biodiversity loss and ecological degradation is having and will continue to have unless we take action. It was disappointing that it took an FOI request from the Green Alliance for the Government to publish the report in this abridged form. It is clearly <span id="207WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="207WH"></span>something that the Government do not want us to see in full. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are for letting us see it in full? Turning to what was published, the report looks at global factors, such as food supply chains, but it is important that the Government’s approach to supporting biodiversity and ecosystems is not siloed between action abroad and action domestically, but is instead a joint approach. International action to address biodiversity must not solely sit within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but must be co-ordinated with DEFRA and tie into the UK’s domestic agenda to boost supply chains and ecosystems here. The report identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. We must all keep that at the forefront of our minds. This debate considers national security and keeping the UK—our families, homes and livelihoods—safe. National security should always be the first and foremost duty of any Government. One of the reasons the threats identified in the report are different from some other national security threats is the unpredictable behaviour of some natural events, such as the extreme weather events we are seeing both in the UK and globally—we have heard that point powerfully articulated today. In the UK this summer, we have experienced one of the worst droughts in history. Over two-thirds of England —approximately 71%—was in drought following the driest July since 1836. In my constituency, the extreme heat facing the rest of the country was made worse by thousands of my constituents being left without running water this summer for about a week due to unacceptable Thames Water outages for several days. They faced hours of long queues for bottled water or waited anxiously for priority service delivery, with little certainty that they would receive any at all. With warmer summers expected as the norm, I would appreciate it if the Minister assured mine and everyone’s constituents that the Government are taking steps to ensure that they are integrating planning for warm weather into the very heart of our water industry’s operations, so that our constituents are not left exposed in such a vulnerable position in future. The Government should also be supporting farmers to adapt to the impact of climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing market volatility. Sadly, the Government have voted for the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax. That is very pertinent to today’s debate, with the report touching on UK fertiliser resilience. There is also the double-cab pick-up tax and increased national insurance contributions for employers. All those actions have not only caused serious economic and cash-flow problems for farmers; they have also damaged job opportunities for young people coming into agriculture. Why is this so important? Our fantastic farmers are custodians of approximately 70% of the UK’s land. Failing to support farmers is failing to support nature and biodiversity in the UK, which is both unforgivable and incredibly short-sighted. Farmers are pivotal to UK food security. The report says: “Without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.”<span id="208WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="208WH"></span> Therefore, once again, and in a sadly recurring theme, when this current Government should be supporting our family farms to help feed the nation and bolster our food security, there has been a record number of farm closures. Sadly, when it comes to biosecurity, which is intrinsically linked to our food security, yet again the current Government have been slow throughout their tenure. I needed to ask 17 times in Parliament before they provided anything close to the money needed to complete the rebuild of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters. They also continue to preside over an illegal meat import crisis at our borders. In the last couple of years, Europe has seen foot and mouth disease, and African swine fever is also advancing up the continent. As we have heard in this debate and this morning’s statement, bluetongue virus is surging in the UK and poses a specific threat in the context of climate change. The virus is rapidly multiplying in the midge vector, the range of which is advancing northwards. Leaving us exposed to those threats is reckless. The report we are debating is a much-needed wake-up call to the Government, who sadly seem to be asleep at the wheel. A report of this kind should have prompted an immediate response, yet we have seen in DEFRA that this Government do not seem to move with speed. That must change. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points made today. However, more than anything, I would like a guarantee that there will be co-ordination across Government to bolster ecosystems internationally and in the UK. DEFRA must play a leading role in this work. I really hope that the Prime Minister was misspeaking in his comment yesterday about how he rates DEFRA among Government Departments. DEFRA should be at the heart of Government in protecting and feeding our country and looking after our precious environment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that. Co-ordinated policy also needs us to be using every tool at our disposal. I urge the Government to recognise the important role that zoos play in conservation, as we also heard from the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). Zoos such as Chester and London, through species reintroduction and habitat restoration, do so much to help fight species decline. They need to be used to our full advantage to meet biodiversity targets. In conclusion, when ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions of the globe and, as the report states, the world could be on a path towards “geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources” the Government must not stand and sit idle. I ask them to act.
- Hansard source
Vaccination Rates: England
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this important debate. Why do we vaccinate? As we have heard today, we vaccinate because it prevents illness, it reduces the severity of illnesses that do occur, and it reduces complications. I should declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS, as a parent of three children between 11 and 19 and as someone who was a volunteer vaccinator for many months at the local vaccine centre during the covid-19 pandemic. Vaccines were first identified, or discovered, by Edward Jenner in 1796. He discovered the smallpox vaccine, which eliminated smallpox completely between 1958 and 1977. We have seen that happen with so many diseases. I have a list, but it is so long that I am not sure I have time to read it all out: diphtheria, tetanus, polio, haemophilus influenzae, pertussis, rotavirus, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, flu, respiratory syncytial virus, shingles, human papillomavirus, various strains of meningitis, rubella, mumps, coronavirus—I could go on. There are so many different things to which we now have vaccines that we did not have previously and that have reduced the incidence of death and serious illness in so many people. It is almost impossible to quantify how many lives have been saved. I want to focus on measles, which several hon. Members have mentioned. My great-uncle Leonard died of measles at the age of 15 months. Pre-vaccine, it was a common condition that killed many people. Thankfully, now it is not—and why? Because of vaccines. Vaccination rates have fallen, however, and we have lost our measles-free status. We need to make sure, as far as possible, that everyone gets the vaccine. The concept of herd immunity means that if some children cannot be vaccinated because of a personal health condition, they will be protected to an extent by the fact of a large proportion of the population having been vaccinated, and by the reduction of that disease within the community in some conditions. If vaccination rates fall, there is a risk to those people, as well as to those who have just decided not to have the vaccine. I would be interested to know how the Minister will focus on measles in particular.<span id="182WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="182WH"></span> When we were in office, the Conservatives modernised the routine vaccination programme. In 2015, the UK became the first country to offer the Bexsero vaccine against meningitis B, which was given to babies aged eight to 16 weeks, followed by a booster around their first birthday. In 2017, we also switched to the hexavalent six-in-one routine vaccine programme so that babies could be protected against hepatitis B for the first time. Conservative Ministers expanded the HPV vaccination to boys, bringing the UK in line with other developed countries and preventing approximately 30,000 cases of cancer in males. The vaccine taskforce secured seven vaccines for the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, invested over £400 million in scaling up domestic manufacturing and mobilised more than 100,000 volunteers with sites right across the country. We also backed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with public funding and agreed a 10-year partnership with Moderna to invest in mRNA research and development. The previous Government supported vaccination in a number of ways; I look forward to hearing from the Minister what her Government will do to support it. I also want to talk about meningitis B, which is a horrible, rapid disease that affects patients very quickly. It is one of the diseases that is quite frightening to see as a paediatrician because of the speed at which a child goes from being well to being critically ill. We have all heard about putting the glass across the rash to see whether it disappears, but I have watched that rash appear on children with lightning speed. The disease kills, and it leaves many children with severe, lifelong disabilities. In 2015, the UK was first in the world to bring in a vaccine against meningitis for small children, but last year we saw meningitis B infections in groups of older children and young adults in Kent, Dorset and Reading. There were 21 cases in Kent and two deaths. The Government quickly brought in a local vaccine programme to treat people who might have been at risk, but there was also a stampede for private provision; Boots, Superdrug and other commercial ventures ran out of the vaccine within a few hours. The Government have decided to bring in a system under which people born between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2008, and those who are starting university or further education colleges for the first time this year, will be able to get the vaccine. However, the JCVI has suggested that children who have been vaccinated with one dose should be given a booster at age 15. That means those who were born after 1 May 2015, so the Minister has a little while to manage that, but the JCVI has also recommended two doses for adolescents who did not get the first dose. The Government do not seem to have taken up that recommendation yet. Will they do so? When? A meningitis vaccine has also been brought in for men who have sex with men because, interestingly, it also has a 42% protective rate for gonococcal conditions. There was a record high of 85,000 cases in 2023. The vaccine has helped with those cases, but it would be beneficial to know when the Government will ensure that all our young children have the protection that they need against this frightening disease. Other things are slipping, too. The flu vaccination is highly effective at reducing seasonal hospital admissions. The WHO recognises that it is the most effective way to <span id="183WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="183WH"></span>prevent infection and severe outcomes from flu, but coverage among the elderly and at-risk groups has declined in England. I would be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that is, what her research shows and what she is going to do about it. Respiratory syncytial virus affects not just children, but the elderly. The vaccine is incredibly effective in the elderly; last year, the JCVI recommended its extension to the over-80s. At the time, I asked Ministers whether the vaccine, having been recommended by the JCVI in the early summer, would be ready for last winter. My understanding, from what was said, was that they were going to work at pace. They reassured me that it would happen, but it did not. I believe that the vaccine will be available to older people this winter, but what is the Minister doing to make sure that they are aware of that so that they take it up? It will help to reduce admissions to hospital over the winter and reduce the pressure on A&Es and ambulance services, and it will mean that people are less unwell, which is obviously a good thing. Many hon. Members have talked about vaccine hesitancy. Polling by Ipsos found that more than two thirds of adults believed that it was “difficult for the public to spot misleading health information.” It also found that those in the most deprived areas were more likely to be affected. According to a UK Health Security Agency survey, last year 47% of parents who reported seeing concerning information about vaccines said that they had seen it on social media. As hon. Members have said, those sorts of message, such as the suggestion that cancer in the royal family was caused by vaccines, were platformed by a political party at a conference. It is important that we give responsible information about vaccines that we know to be true. We do not pretend that there are no risks. There is always a small risk to anything: we take a risk when we get up in the morning and come to work, and we take a risk every time we cross the road. Every aspect of our life contains risk, but we need to be honest with people and explain that the risks of vaccines are tiny and the risks of the disease are potentially much greater. That will mean that people can make informed decisions. When patients who have not been vaccinated come to clinic—we check with all children whether they have been vaccinated when they come for their first clinical appointment—they have very often refused once and not been asked again. The reason why has not been discussed. No one has asked them why they are worried about the vaccine; it has just been accepted at face value. Very often, when we talk to parents about it, they will then have their children vaccinated. We need to make sure that when unvaccinated children do present to medical services, we take the opportunity to try to get them vaccinated. I welcome the addition to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum of facts about vaccination and immunisation, but what is happening to provide public information to parents and other adults? It is said that vaccine uptake among ethnic minority groups is markedly lower. Does the Minister understand why? What is she doing to improve it? The Prime Minister has previously attested that Healthwatch is a key factor in engaging marginalised communities, but this Labour Government have placed it on the chopping block in the <span id="184WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="184WH"></span>Health Bill, which is due back in the House next week. How does the Minister foresee that role being taken up by the patient experience body with which the Government intend to replace it? From April next year, integrated care boards instead of NHS England will be responsible for vaccinations. I understand that that is part of the Minister’s strategic commissioning vision, but will that additional responsibility be met with additional resources? How will the Government ensure that it does not cause further slippage in vaccinations? Finally, I want to mention the life sciences industry, which is struggling under this Government’s tax burden. Now that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been abolished, what will the Minister do to ensure that the industry is given the support that it needs? Occasionally during my career, a parent of a critically ill child has looked me in the eye, often as the child is being put in an ambulance to an intensive care unit, and said, “If I’d given my child the vaccine, they wouldn’t be this ill, would they, Doctor?” There is trauma and grief for those parents, and a regret that is completely unnecessary and can be prevented. It is in the hands of the Minister and of this Government to do what they can to prevent it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister plans to do.
- Hansard source
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
I must admit that I am angry and disappointed when I hear Members on other Benches seeming to cast aside jobs in my constituency. On 18 June, the people of Aberdeen South sent the huge message to both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood that they will not stand back and watch their jobs being destroyed. Every month, 1,000 jobs are being lost in the UK oil and gas industry. Every month, the Government dither and delay, which means more jobs lost. Does the Minister not accept that those workers deserve clarity, and not to have the decision kicked further down the road? They need assurance that their jobs will be saved.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
During recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the Counselling House charity in my constituency, which is doing excellent work providing mental health counselling to young people and families, free at the point of use. That is against a backdrop of savage cuts from the SNP-run Aberdeen city council. Could we have a debate in Government time on the important issue of young people’s mental health, and how we can move it on to a more sustainable footing?
- Hansard source
Bluetongue Virus in Livestock
Livestock farmers in Devon are facing this bluetongue outbreak at an already difficult time. They are meeting unexpected vaccination and fallen stock costs following a summer of drought, while changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are adding to concerns about farm finances and succession. Does the Minister recognise that the financial impact of bluetongue cannot be considered in isolation, and what assessment has he made of the cumulative pressures on farm cash flow this year?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all know the Prime Minister is a strong supporter of devolution and we understand that big changes are now under way in Devon. Before Devon embarks on one of the biggest changes to local government in a generation, local people deserve to know what the new mayor would do, what their mandate would be, how much it would all cost, and how they would work with the new unitary authority. When we have asked the Government those questions, we have received very little information. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister responsible to meet Devon MPs to discuss this in detail?
- Hansard source
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
The BBC and others have reported that importing liquefied natural gas is 10 times more polluting than pipeline gas. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? Further, has any assessment been made of what the impact of Jackdaw would be on reducing pollution?
- Hansard source
Bluetongue Virus in Livestock
May I once again restate the cross-border issue? Longtown in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is one of the most important markets for livestock in the south of Scotland. Can the Minister confirm specifically that he is addressing the cross-border issues that NFU Scotland has raised, including the requirement relating to vaccination, testing and the return of animals to Scotland; the compatibility and recognition of vaccination records across the border; and the arrangements for animals that cannot meet vaccination requirements within the prescribed timescales?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I welcome the Leader of the House back to his place. I very much supported his traditionalism when I saw that he did not engage in any vulgar hugging of the Prime Minister on his appointment. Can we have a debate in Government time on the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency? My constituent Fiona Reid advises me that her daughter has sought a practical driving test in Dumfries and Galloway and has not been able to secure one before the end of January. She has also tried to get an appointment in Carlisle and has not been able to do so. For young people in rural areas like mine, driving is not a luxury—it is an important part of being able to get a job and of social interaction. Could we have that debate and get an improvement in that service?