Edward Morello MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  This morning, Sir Olly Robbins appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee. What I saw was a dedicated public servant who, over 25 years, has held some of the most senior roles in the civil service. The Prime Minister would like us to believe that he was let down by officials such as Sir Olly, but in truth it was the officials who were let down by the Prime Minister. They were let down by a Prime Minister who decided to appoint to the highest diplomatic post in the Foreign Office a person who had a known association with a convicted paedophile, and who had been forced out of Government on previous occasions for personal failings. Having made that decision, No. 10 was determined to ram it through. We have heard of the repeated calls to Olly Robbins’s private office to demand that they get it done quickly. No. 10 even went so far as to argue that the vetting process was not necessary at all. It was FCDO officials who insisted that the proper process be applied, and it was thanks to that decision that there were risk mitigations in place at all. Other Members have raised concerns about security, but if it was not for officials insisting on security vetting and the imposition of mitigations, how much worse would the national security risk have been to the UK? This is not the Prime Minister being let down by officials; it is officials clearing up the Prime Minister’s mess. The Prime Minister wants us to believe that the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US was a singular error of judgment. However, we now know as a result of Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence that No. 10 also sought an ambassadorial appointment for the Prime Minister’s director of communications, Matthew Doyle. Appointing one friend of a paedophile as an ambassador might be an error of judgment. Attempting to appoint two looks like no judgment at all. In his statement to the House yesterday, the Prime Minister said: “It beggars belief that…officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers”. —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 26.] However, we have now learned that No. 10, having sought an ambassadorial position for Matthew Doyle, ordered Sir Olly not to tell the Foreign Secretary about it at all. On the one hand, the Prime Minister thinks officials should not withhold information. On the other hand, No. 10 is ordering officials to withhold information. Who is letting down who? Today I saw a diligent, committed, proud and passionate civil servant who worked unbelievably hard for this country and for this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister may have found someone to fire, but the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson was his. The decision to ram that appointment through was his. The decision to announce the appointment before security vetting had been completed was his. The Prime Minister is running out of people to fire. It is time he answered for them.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Draft Train Driving Licences and Certificates (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I see a lot of familiar faces from the Railways Bill Committee— I worry that I have become a member of a group I never aspired to join. I am here to speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; we support this statutory instrument, which lowers the minimum age to obtain a mainline driving licence in Great Britain from 20 to 18, while maintaining the age of 20 for drivers operating in the channel tunnel zone, in line with international agreements. This SI removes an arbitrary barrier that has prevented the rail industry from recruiting directly from school leavers, at a time when the workforce is ageing, we are facing significant shortages and young people are struggling to find employment opportunities. The regulations do not alter existing safety requirements, or mandatory medical, psychological and competency assessments, which remain in place. A 2024 Rail Safety and Standards Board report concluded that there is no evidence that 18 or 19-year-olds pose a higher safety risk than older drivers. Safety is driven by robust training and supervision standards, rather than age alone. Overall, despite some industry concerns, this is a proportionate and evidence-based reform that supports the long-term resilience of the rail network. As Liberal Democrats, we are always happy to see the UK aligning with our European neighbours on this issue.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister wants us to focus on process and not his judgment, but this entire sorry episode is the direct result of his decision to make a direct appointment to one of the most senior roles in the FCDO of somebody who was wholly inappropriate for that role. Will the Prime Minister at least confirm to the House that this was a singular error of judgment, and that his No. 10 operation has not proposed a political appointee for any other senior role in the FCDO?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Cost of Heating Oil · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing the debate. Around 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil as their sole source of heating, and in some villages, including Yetminster, Bradford Abbas and Longburton, the proportion is almost half of all households. In the last couple of weeks, one constituent was quoted £1.40 per litre—more than double the previous week’s price of 60p—resulting in a £735 bill for 500 litres. Another constituent, a pensioner, had a confirmed order cancelled and was then asked to pay more than £1,000 for the same delivery. Others have reported being unable to secure deliveries at all or being quoted up to two and a half times the previous price, leaving them without heating or water. One company tried to offer my constituent a refund instead of delivering the oil, so that they would have to reorder at a higher price. These are not isolated incidents: they point to a wider issue of instability and a lack of transparency in the market. This is a challenge not just for those on the lowest incomes. Middle-income families who receive no targeted support are also being hit hard, as are farmers, who already face increasing input costs. Although I welcome the Government’s recognition that some oil-heated households are particularly vulnerable, the current level of support does not match the scale of the problem. As has been highlighted elsewhere, £35 per household is simply not sufficient in the face of the prices we are seeing. A temporary zero-rating of VAT on heating oil would provide immediate relief, and we should implement a price cap similar to the other price caps in the marketplace for consumers such as electricity users. At the very least, the Government must assess whether the current level of support is adequate in rural areas with high levels of oil dependence and ensure that funding is targeted accordingly.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Police Federation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member says that policing is often a thankless task. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to and thank him and the many other fantastic police officers, including in Dorset police, for their work. The hon. Member talks about the fairness of representation. I had a constituent whose daughter, a police officer, was sexually assaulted by a fellow police officer. She was dismissed from the service as a result of a misconduct process that failed to recognise her trauma. Both officers were represented by the Police Federation, and the other officer got more senior representation based on his rank. That cannot be right.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is 100% right. Wherever possible, we should generate and use on site. The problem so often—I will come to this point in my speech—is that the value of anything that is exported to the grid fundamentally underlines any kind of investment model when we are looking at on-site generation.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  I can certainly agree with the argument that putting solar on grade 1 land should be avoided wherever possible. The right hon. Gentleman may be interested in the recent report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on our adversaries’ attempts to cut subsea cables, and on the implicit danger of having so few connection points with such concentrated areas of offshore generation, as we have seen with recent Russian activity. I will happily pick up that point with him afterwards. About two thirds of UK solar capacity is ground-mounted, but there are concerns about where developments are located, particularly those built on high-quality agricultural land. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool): I have never met a farmer, especially in West Dorset, who got into farming because they wanted to grow solar panels. Farmers want to produce food, but we must acknowledge that after years of pressure on farm incomes and pressure on them by this Government, some see solar as one of the few reliable ways to keep their farm operating. We are asking more and more of our countryside. We want it to produce food, support biodiversity, generate renewable energy, capture carbon, provide housing, and support tourism and recreation. We need guidance to identify where solar is most appropriate, steer it away from the best agricultural land wherever possible, and encourage dual-use schemes that allow land to generate energy while still supporting farmers and nature—

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) suggests that we should utilise the least useful land going. My understanding, according to the numbers I have looked at, is that at least 2% of the UK is covered in golf courses, which are ecological wastelands. At the risk of alienating all the golfing voters out there, I wonder whether the Minister would like to use that land.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Ground-mounted Solar Panels: Alternatives · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. I confess that I had prepared to do far more debunking of climate-denying nonsense, given some of the statements by the hon. and gallant Member’s party leader, so I was relieved to hear his very impressive and science-based speech. I support a lot of what he said. The only note that I wrote myself was to say that we do not need to worry that solar panels start to lose efficiency above an ambient air temperature of 25°C, which is a fairly infrequent event in the UK. I totally accept his point about the efficiency of putting solar on water. If the constituents of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) have concerns about battery energy storage systems fires, she should point out to them that there have only been about 30 BESS-linked fires globally in the last 15 years. It is actually incredibly safe. The point about rooftops is about prefab buildings—the large warehouses. The roofs have an insurable lifespan of about 15 years, whereas solar panels have a 30-year lifespan, so we need to change the building regulations, as has been said. That is all a long-winded way of saying, that prior to getting elected, I spent 10 years working in the renewable energy sector, so I have a particular passion for this subject. I am also the chair of the ClimateTech all-party parliamentary group and co-chair of the net zero all-party parliamentary group. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne will forgive me if I expand a little on the technological options available outside floating solar. We face a worsening climate crisis, with more frequent extreme weather events affecting communities in West Dorset and across the UK, as well as being in the middle of a cost of living crisis, with families facing high food, fuel and energy bills, compounded by the illegal conflict started by the President of the United States. About 15% of households in West Dorset rely on heating oil, and many do not qualify for the support that has been announced. Petrol and diesel prices are rising. Red diesel for farmers has doubled in price. Fertiliser prices are rising, too, which will feed through to food prices. As a result, it has never been more important to make renewables work for working families. That is not because they are cleaner and more secure than fossil fuels, although we know that they are, but because they are the cheapest form of energy available. New solar now costs 11% less than the cheapest fossil fuel to generate electricity. Onshore wind is 39% cheaper. Over a decade ago, only 6% of the UK’s electricity came from renewables. Today, it is 42%. On Sunday, renewables generated 62% of the UK’s electricity, of which solar produced 8.8%. We should be enormously proud of that, but while renewables are getting cheaper, people are not seeing the benefit in their bills. Under the current marginal pricing system, the price of electricity is set by the cost of gas. That means that when global gas prices go up, electricity bills go up too, regardless of how much renewable power, or power of any kind, we are generating domestically. That system has left the UK with the fourth highest electricity prices in the world. It is not working for households or for businesses. Let us be clear that the answer to energy insecurity is not more dependence on oil and gas; it is more cheap British renewable energy. Under the clean power 2030 action plan, the Government want 95% of Britain’s electricity to come from clean sources by 2030—a noble endeavour. To get there, the Government plan to increase solar capacity to between 45 GW and 47 GW by 2030. That will require doubling our capacity.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  In his statement, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to double down on NATO. President Trump has attempted to use the threat to withdraw from the NATO alliance to blackmail other NATO countries into joining his illegal endeavour in Iran, and he has threatened to annex the sovereign territory of another NATO member and has said that NATO members were not there for the US. It is clear that the US is an unreliable partner in NATO, so will the Prime Minister announce when he is going to release the defence investment plan? Will he explain how we can forge closer ties with our European allies, who are more reliable?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Fire Station Closures · Hansard source

  More

  I fully accept that an increase in the precept would be one option available to the Government, but I would also like to challenge the Government on the underlying assumptions in Treasury funding models, not least with the forecast population growth and the lack of rurality in many of the funding models across the board. We are talking about fire services, but I could talk to rurality in the funding of Dorset police, Dorset NHS or any number of areas. The fact is that rural Britain is repeatedly underserved when it comes to the Treasury funding model. The result is that stations like Charmouth are now being considered for closure, with neighbouring stations, such as Lyme Regis, expected to cover larger areas without any additional resources. If local stations close, travel distances will inevitably increase, which means longer response times for fires, road traffic collisions, flooding incidents and other emergencies. Sixty per cent of incidents that crews from the eight at-risk stations attend are outside the station catchment area. In critical, life-threatening situations, small delays will have consequences. That is particularly concerning in West Dorset, where the population increases by 42% during the summer months due to tourism. Our narrow country roads, the wider effects of rurality, seasonal visitor numbers and coastal geography all create travel difficulties that are not accounted for in the formulae. Time and again, it is rural communities that end up paying the price. A consultation on the proposed closures is under way and, like many, I urge all my constituents to make their voices heard. But the reality is that the service is being pushed towards these decisions by the financial framework that it has to operate within. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already lost one fifth of its workforce since 2010. Removing another 16% of stations would push the service even further. I therefore ask the Government to look carefully at whether the current funding settlement for fire and rescue services properly reflects the needs of rural and coastal areas, and whether the current funding is undoing years of underfunding or, in reality, compounding it. It is not hyperbole to say that, without proper funding, we are putting people’s lives at risk. I beg the Minister and the Treasury to meet Dorset and Wiltshire fire service to review the underlying assumptions and reconsider the funding settlement.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Fire Station Closures · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) on securing this important debate, and I thank him and the Minister for giving me permission to speak. I am in danger of repeating many of the points that my hon. Friend made, but they are important points, and this is an important issue. The proposals from Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service would see the closure of eight on-call fire stations across Dorset and Wiltshire, including the stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton in my constituency of West Dorset. I recognise that decisions about station closures ultimately sit with fire authorities, not the Minister, but when the pressures driving those decisions stem from central Government funding settlements, it is only right that the Government are held to account. If approved in the coming weeks, the closures would remove 16% of the service’s fire stations and lead to the loss of 72 firefighters. For many of the villages and towns these stations serve, they are the closest responders, and their loss would change the resilience of emergency coverage across our rural communities. The proposed closures have understandably caused deep concern among my constituents. I have met the chief fire officer and senior management, representatives of the two firefighters’ unions and the station commanders for both Charmouth and Maiden Newton. I have also received a huge number of emails and letters from residents who are rightly worried about what the changes will mean for their safety and the safety of the many visitors who come to West Dorset each year. The firefighters who serve our communities do extraordinary work. The stations at Charmouth and Maiden Newton, as well as the six other stations, are staffed by on-call firefighters—people who live and work locally but are ready to leave their jobs and families at the drop of a hat to respond to emergencies. They do so knowing that they may be putting themselves in harm’s way to protect their neighbours. In West Dorset, they are often the first responders to road traffic collisions, particularly on dangerous rural roads such as the A35. During the summer months they respond to wildfires and heath fires, which are becoming more and more frequent as temperatures rise. They also assist during flooding incidents, which our communities have experienced repeatedly in recent years, most recently during Storm Chandra. Since the merger that created Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service in 2016, the service has had to find more than £15 million in savings and is under real financial pressure. That has already resulted in a 15% reduction in firefighter posts and the removal of second fire engines from five stations. Under the so-called long-term funding settlement offered by this Government, the authority has a revenue budget deficit of £1.2 million in year 1, £1.5 million in year 2 and £1.7 million in year 3. Frankly, I do not think “funding settlement” is the correct phrase. The Minister will mention the Government’s decision to allow fire authorities to raise the council tax precept by £5 per year, which is said to produce an average annual increase in funding of 4.1%, but, as has been outlined, that does not tell the full story. The central Government revenue support grant for Dorset and Wiltshire is projected to fall from £12.8 million in 2026-27 to £10.3 million by 2028-29—a reduction of nearly 20% in three years. The fair funding model has, to date, removed about £1.8 million a year from the service’s budget. Put simply, the Government expect fire services to make up the shortfall the Government have created through council tax increases. In theory, council tax makes up 73% of fire service funding, business rates make up 11%, and revenue support grant from central Government makes up only 16%, but the underlying assumptions do not work for our rural areas. Council tax revenue depends heavily on local population growth and housing development. In many rural areas, including Dorset, the tax base is growing far more slowly than Treasury assumptions suggest. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service has already confirmed that its council tax base growth is below the levels assumed in the funding settlement. At the same time, the service faces rising costs that it cannot control: increases in employer national insurance contributions; higher fuel costs, especially with the current conflict in the middle east; higher energy bills; and rising contract costs. That is further compounded by the fact that the funding model does not properly account for rurality. All this leaves the service in an increasingly vulnerable financial position.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Disability Equipment Provision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. I agree with absolutely everything he has said. He talks about the problem with access to equipment; I know of one case, which is representative of many that come across my desk, that concerns the inability to hand back equipment after use. A constituent contacted me whose mother had died after two years of home care. She had a hospital bed, three commodes, an orthopaedic chair and a walking frame. The NHS provider had gone into receivership and there was no method whatsoever for her to hand back the equipment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are compounding the problems for people getting equipment by not reusing the stuff that is already out there?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the steer from the Chair and apologise for the late arrival. My hon. Friend talks about the wider structural issues that drive homelessness, one of which is the winner-takes-all system when it comes to benefits. In that system, families that are breaking up may split child custody on a 50:50 basis, but the benefit awarding system only awards benefits to one parent. That results in the other parent having no access to their children, and often results in them losing their home and ending up homeless. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as the councils and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we should also look at how the benefits system can ensure that parents can stay in accommodation and have access to their children?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly agree that, if we want to become a market or world leader in a particular technology space, it is vital that we channel funding and support into those areas where we have the most opportunity and a competitive advantage. Climate technology is not only an environmental priority, but a huge economic opportunity to lead a sector the world will need for decades to come. The UK’s greenhouse gas removal sector alone is now valued at £1.2 billion, with investment increasing by more than 39% in 2024—faster than the technology sector as a whole. According to analysis aligned with the Climate Change Committee’s seventh carbon budget, greenhouse gas removal technologies could support over 60,000 high-quality jobs in the UK by 2050. The Government have already taken some positive steps: funding for carbon capture and storage clusters, investment in innovation programmes, such as direct air capture and bioenergy carbon capture, and plans for new clean tech innovation challenges. Those are all important developments. However, challenges remain, particularly when companies try to move from early innovation to large-scale deployment. Many climate technology companies face what is often called the valley of death. Early-stage funding can help to get ideas off the ground, but when companies reach pilot or demonstration stage, that funding often disappears. Data shows that although almost all seed-stage companies move forward, only one third successfully progress beyond series B investment. At that point, the technologies often require significant capital investment to scale, which requires the Government to project confidence to the sectors and investors. Without stronger support mechanisms, whether through the National Wealth Fund, the British Business Bank or other targeted policies, many promising technologies risk stalling before they ever reach market. In other sectors, there is more the Government can do. A fantastic company called Sintela in Dorchester in my constituency develops advanced fibre-optic sensing systems capable of detecting movement and activity across long distances of infrastructure. The technology has applications in security, energy systems and environmental monitoring. Last year, the company secured orders from US Customs and Border Protection worth more than $90 million. That contract has now been expanded to $200 million through to 2028, which represents the largest contract globally for distributed fibre-optic sensing technology. Small companies like Sintela can struggle to gain the same level of access to Government support and trade opportunities as larger firms. When business delegations travel abroad with Ministers or during state visits, the companies included are often the same large multinational businesses, but SMEs are often where some of the most exciting innovation is happening. If we want to support British tech companies properly, we must also ensure that small and medium-sized firms are included in trade missions, international delegations and export promotion. The UK needs a clear long-term approach to science and technology. That includes raising research and development spending to 3.5% of GDP, investing in digital infrastructure, supporting local government capacity and ensuring that the benefits of technology are spread around the country. It also means continuing to invest in green technologies, which is essential if we are to tackle the climate crisis, while creating new industries and job opportunities. The UK has many of the ingredients needed for success: world-class universities, strong research institutions and an entrepreneurial technology sector. What we must do now is make sure that the environment is right for those companies to grow.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on securing this important debate. I suspect that, at this point, I am in danger of labouring the points already made by other hon. Members, but I will persist. Perhaps it is a sign that we all know what needs to happen. I am sure the Minister will speak to those issues. The UK tech sector employs more than 1.7 million people and contributes more than £150 billion to the UK economy. Our technology ecosystem has created more than 185 unicorn companies, which are start-up companies valued at more than £1 billion. I suspect that, at the end of this debate, a word cloud would have the word “ecosystem” as the largest word, but there is good reason for that. Innovation does not happen on its own; it requires the right conditions, such as access to funding, clear regulation, market confidence, skilled workers and a Government who understand the importance of helping companies grow. That is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which form the backbone of the UK economy. In the UK, there were 5.7 million SMEs, including 5.4 million microbusinesses, in 2025. Those companies often develop some of the most exciting ideas, but they also face the greatest challenges when trying to scale up. One area where the UK has a huge opportunity is climate technology. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ClimateTech, and having spent nearly a decade working in renewable energy finance before entering Parliament, I have seen how much potential this sector has. Between now and 2050, the world will need to remove 165 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, with annual removals reaching about 10 billion tonnes a year by the mid-century if we are to limit global warming to between 1.5°C and 2°C. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it clear that without carbon-removal technologies, those goals will not be met.

• 11 Mar 2026 · UK-based Tech Companies · Hansard source

  More

  Shortly before the debate, the Minister said he would like to visit Weston-super-Mare and other locations. I invite him to beautiful West Dorset to visit the fibre optics company Sintela, which is one of the UK’s biggest success stories.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman; in fact, I would quite happily have a whole other Westminster Hall debate on how we raise the level of the Championship, or the Champ, because the difference between the Prem and the Champ now is enormous. There are better models elsewhere. For example, we can look at France and the success of its second division—the “D2”, although I am not sure how that is pronounced in English. It is markedly different to second-tier rugby in this country. Rugby must be a sport open to everyone, and not just those who happen to attend traditional rugby-playing schools. Where state schools have had the right funding and support, they have thrived in school competitions, fuelled rugby academies, inspired a new generation of rugby fans and shown what is possible with the right conditions. The sport needs far greater diversity, and participation from people of all backgrounds and socioeconomic circumstances. It is not just good for society but good for the sport, because a larger, more diverse player pool ensures that we have the best players and the strongest competition. That means that rugby must exist in more state schools across the country, but there has been a worrying decline in school sports provision. Data from the Youth Sport Trust shows that the number of hours of PE and sport delivered in schools has fallen by more than 45,000 hours since 2012. That cannot be the direction of travel if we are serious about the health and wellbeing of our young people. The Government have announced reforms, such as the new school sports partnerships and the national enrichment framework, and they are very welcome steps, but when will those programmes be implemented? Will they be in place for the next school year? Can the Government guarantee that there will be no cuts to school sports funding? School sports need stable, multi-year funding. Active children are more likely to remain active adults, so it brings enormous public health benefits. The RFU has also begun important work to expand the sport in schools. In 2024, it commissioned a review of rugby union in education, focusing on sustainability and participation. One of the most exciting initiatives is the roll-out of T1 rugby, which is a non-contact version of the game developed by World Rugby. In the 2024-25 season, T1 rugby reached 1,800 schools and around 80,000 students, with a near equal mix of boys and girls. Within four years, the programme aims to reach more than 5,000 schools. It shows what can be achieved when organisations work together with a clear strategy. Government Departments must do the same. Education policy and sports policy cannot exist in isolation. If the Department for Education and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport collaborate effectively, rugby can reach schools and communities that have never had access to the sport. That means providing equipment, time to have PE on the curriculum, proper time and training for teachers so that they have the confidence to coach, proper facilities to get changed in, pitches to play on, and access for all children to boots and sports clothing so that they are able to play. We must also recognise the role that rugby can play beyond the pitch. Sport is an important form of soft power. Football, music and the creative industries project British culture across the world, and rugby can do the same. Players such as Maro Itoje, Ellie Kildunne, Henry Pollock, Sadia Kabeya, Ellis Genge and Meg Jones are more than just elite athletes, they should be ambassadors for this country. We should also recognise the serious financial challenges facing the professional game. Prem rugby has grown in popularity, attendance figures are rising, stadiums are filling and broadcast audiences continue to increase, but financial sustainability at the top of the pyramid remains a real concern, despite those successes. Several Premiership clubs continue to carry significant losses. Collectively, clubs owe large sums in pandemic loans issued through the Government support scheme. During covid-19, the Government provided £123.8 million in loans to premiership rugby clubs, which was 57% of the total amount to sports organisations. Champ clubs received a combined £4.8 million in loan support. That was vital support that helped clubs survive the pandemic, but the financial model of professional rugby is fragile. Clubs such as Wasps, London Irish and Worcester Warriors have entered insolvency in recent years, unable to pay back the huge amounts of debt owed to the taxpayer. Even among the surviving clubs in the Prem, there are significant financial losses. Figures for 2025 showed that the biggest annual losses were £7.5 million at Saracens and £7 million at Sale Sharks, but every Premiership club recorded a loss, highlighting the financial pressures facing the professional game, even as it works to stabilise after the disruption of recent years. The Government have been very supportive through the loans system, and I hope that we will hear a firm commitment from the Minister that that will continue, but it is not acceptable for top-flight rugby.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  You leave me in something of a quandary because I deliberately chose Government support for English rugby, rather than using the debate as an opportunity to beat up the RFU—although I certainly have my criticisms of it, and I will come on to some of those points. The Government repeatedly say that the RFU is an arm’s length body, but the reality is that the RFU is in receipt of millions of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, it is absolutely justifiable for parliamentarians to hold it to account, and my personal view is that right now, not enough money is getting to the lower parts of the rugby pyramid.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  Apologies, Ms Vaz. We will come back to that topic in another debate. There are signs of growth and optimism in Prem rugby. The quality of rugby is among the best in the world. We are producing world-class talent that—the Six Nations aside—usually excels on the world stage. Attendance is growing, with several rounds of Prem rugby seeing sold-out fixtures and stadium occupancy reaching record levels. Broadcast audiences are also increasing, with round nine in January attracting more than 1.2 million viewers. The Premiership final last year, which as a Bath supporter I am legally obliged to mention—come on Bath!—drew in nearly 1 million viewers in addition to a live crowd of 82,000 at Twickenham. Following the final, social engagement interactions across Premiership rugby channels rose by 24%. TV figures are up 35% since 2022. Those figures show that when the game is accessible, exciting and well promoted, fans are eager to watch, attend and engage. The professional game also provides a platform not only to showcase elite rugby, but to inspire the next generation and increase participation. But we must translate that success into players that are playing at a grassroots level, something that I worry we are failing to do. Government have a role in English rugby, not by running the sport, but by ensuring transparency, oversight and responsible use of public money. When taxpayers are funding sports facilities, development programmes or covid loans, Parliament has a duty to ensure that that money is used effectively. Through Sport England, the Government have invested £72 million into rugby union since 2016—most recently £16.9 million in the RFU across the 2022 to 2027 funding cycle. We have a right and a duty to make sure that public money is well spent in the right places and on the right things. Government can also actively take an interest in promoting and growing all parts of our game, from using our athletes as ambassadors for our country to directly supporting community rugby groups who reach out to those schools that we cannot reach. That brings me back to local communities and grassroots, because without grassroots rugby, none of the rest exists. The volunteers who mark the pitches, cook the food, coach the children and wash the kit are the true foundation of the sport. They deserve our recognition, our support and, most of all, our thanks. If we support grassroots rugby properly, if we bring the sport into more schools, if we invest in deprived communities, if we strengthen the women’s game and if we stabilise the professional leagues, then we will have a game that we love and that we can see flourish.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly and am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to speak to that pledge. Most importantly, grassroots clubs are where the future of the sport begins. They are where the next England star first learnt to pass, make a tackle and score a try. Yet many grassroots clubs are struggling. Across the country are clubhouses that are outdated, that have unsuitable changing rooms and where facilities are not always appropriate for the women’s game. Often there are no women’s changing rooms at all.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member about the wider benefits of rugby, and I will go on to speak about some of the important things that physical activity and sport bring to communities and young people. However, as he mentioned “Gladiators”, it would be remiss of me not to mention my son’s favourite Gladiator, Nitro. I am sure that my son will be delighted to have that on the record. [ Laughter. ] Financial pressures are constant. Many clubs survive only because of the extraordinary dedication of volunteers who give their time to keep the lights on and the pitches playable. Matches are regularly cancelled because clubs are unable to field teams in certain age groups. In the last 24 years, 174 amateur clubs have disappeared, which should be a concern to all of us, because if we want rugby to thrive in the future, grassroots clubs must be protected and supported.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for English rugby. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Although I confess it is tempting to use this 30 minutes to talk about the disastrous result at the weekend, I will instead stick to the topic. I am a rugby romantic. For me and so many others, the game is about something far deeper than the scoreline. It is of course about solo tries, rolling mauls and high-pressure drop goals that win world cups, but it is also about the burgers from the clubhouse kitchen; standing on the sidelines in the rain, snow, wind and, very occasionally, glorious sunshine; the professional players having their signed shirts on the walls of their childhood club; and tying the laces of my son’s boots on a Sunday morning when he turns out for the under-sevens. That reminds me that rugby is not just a sport, but a community, and at the heart of that community is grassroots rugby. Local clubs are far more than places where games are played. They are community assets. They are where children, parents, supporters, coaches and volunteers come together. Yes, we go there to play and watch rugby, but they are also where fitness classes, community events and social gatherings are held. They are places where friendships are made and where people feel part of something bigger than themselves.

• 10 Mar 2026 · English Rugby · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree and will come on to the issues about funding, but also about how we measure the impact to ensure that, whether it be Rugby Football Union funding or Government—taxpayer —money through Sport England, we are measuring the outputs and making sure that we are delivering results.