Ian Murray MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the local authority for that investment. Indeed, this subject comes up regularly; we had an Adjournment debate in the Chamber a few weeks ago on heritage in the east of England, and many of the comments were about how we protect those collections and show them to the public. What museums are doing across the country to give access to those collections is something that we should support to ensure that not only are they preserved, but that people can see them, enjoy them and gain education and knowledge from them. As part of the investment, we announced in August that 37 historic buildings and sites in areas most in need will receive much-needed restoration and repair funding through the heritage at risk capital scheme, including Laurel Court in Peterborough, where funding will secure the building ahead of further renovation. We are also empowering local groups to own the heritage assets they treasure through the heritage revival fund, providing nearly £5 million through the architectural heritage fund to breathe new life into communities by repurposing historic buildings to meet present needs. In that way the past is preserved, and the buildings are used for the future. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for securing this debate and providing me with the opportunity to discuss the importance of bronze-age heritage, and the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing all our shared heritage. Like my hon. Friend, I encourage more people to visit these historic sites and celebrate the history of Cambridgeshire. From the international significance of Must Farm to the local treasure of Flag Fen, it is important not only to honour our bronze-age heritage, but to recognise the positive impact that these sites have on the local and national community in the present. As a Government, and as citizens, we are custodians of our heritage for future generations to enjoy and learn from. We are committed as a Government to making sure that that very heavy responsibility is met fully. Question put and agreed to.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether that is a reference to the site itself or to the right hon. Gentleman—we are about to find out.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg—particularly after last night’s result at Anfield, which will make you a happy Chair this morning. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing it and on the way in which he delivered his remarks. It is worth saying that my hon. Friend is an outstanding Member for his constituency. If I had a pound for every time he has mentioned Peterborough in the House of Commons or to Ministers, lobbying on behalf of his constituency, I would almost be able to afford the train fare from Edinburgh to Peterborough to come and visit all the wonderful things he spoke about. He mentioned the “Doctor Who” exhibition there, but the person who is regenerating Peterborough is my hon. Friend himself—if that is not too outlandish a “Doctor Who” pun. Like my hon. Friend, my thoughts are with those affected by the horrific events over the weekend in his county. I welcome my hon. Friend’s desire for better access to heritage, in particular those close to home: the Flag Fen archaeology park and Must Farm. Flag Fen was discovered during the extensive fenland survey supported by the Government’s arm’s length body Historic England, known as English Heritage at the time. Flag Fen was discovered when lead archaeologist Francis Pryor tripped on a piece of wood lying in a drainage ditch. That would lead to the discovery of more than 60,000 timbers, arranged in five long rows to create a unique historical wooden causeway across the fenland, constructed around 3,500 years ago. It is hard to believe that, without those efforts, the site might never have been discovered—indeed, if most of us had tripped over a piece of wood, it would have led to a few expletives, rather than to such a discovery. The significance of the Flag Fen site was officially recognised through its designation by Government as a scheduled monument, which recognises the site as nationally important and provides statutory protection. I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the two recent incidents of arson at Flag Fen, but I am pleased that Historic England’s work to tackle heritage crimes continues to go from strength to strength, in partnership with the police, other authorities and a range of other stakeholders, including a growing number of local authorities. I am pleased that Cambridgeshire county council is among the leading local authorities in looking at heritage crime. It is important that we can all experience and enjoy the heritage that surrounds us, which forms the backbone of our shared national story. One of the priorities of the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to create richer lives with choices and opportunities for all, including by increasing access to heritage and culture. My hon. Friend mentioned that in his speech, and I know that learning and educational experience is close to his heart. I am therefore delighted that Historic England is working in partnership with Flag Fen archaeology park, Peterborough city council and the University of Cambridge on a strategic plan to increase access to and economic development for the site. That plan will include new opportunities for archaeological investigation, engagement with local communities and learning programmes for younger people. It will create an immersive and enjoyable visitor experience for a wider audience, and physically connect more audiences to Flag Fen through improved transport links. Since the discovery of Flag Fen, Historic England has given it more than £530,000 and will continue to work with that important site so that many future generations can benefit from and be custodians of it. Cambridgeshire is also home of the famous Must Farm site at Whittlesey in East Anglia, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). That is of international importance and provides an incredible snapshot in time of sophisticated bronze-age domestic life.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman with the specifics of the funding. On funding more generally, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised, we know that these are tough times for local authorities, which have been massively underfunded since 2010. There is a requirement to prioritise heritage, of which we are custodians for today and tomorrow—we want to pass it on to future generations. We need to work with the National Lottery Heritage Fund to make up the difference for local authorities. We should encourage local authorities to work together to ensure that everyone benefits. The Secretary of State’s commitment to ensuring that there are arts and heritage for all, right across the country, should answer some of those questions, but I will write to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire on the specific issues he raised. In general terms, we are very much committed to ensuring that all our heritage sites, and the custodians of them, are well funded. He mentioned that there was a sudden fire, earning the site the nickname “Britain’s Pompeii”. It boasts extensive structural remains and a range of material, giving us an insight into the way people lived nearly 3,000 years ago. This is a great advert for it, and people should go and see it: the circle of wooden houses are believed to be the best-preserved bronze-age dwellings ever found in Britain, and a further nine immaculately preserved longboats were discovered and excavated there in 2011. They range from the bronze to the iron age. The site is very much something that people should visit to educate themselves. The major excavation, which took place almost a decade ago, was funded by Historic England and the landowner, Forterra. It received about £1.42 million of funding. The project won several archaeological awards, including rescue project of the year at the 2017 Current Archaeology awards, and best archaeological discovery at the 2012 British archaeological awards—snappily titled awards for that project. I recognise the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough about the shortage of archaeological and heritage skills. That is a priority for the Minister for Heritage, Baroness Twycross. Such skills are essential to maintaining the fabric of these important sites. Baroness Twycross held a skills roundtable in July and is working to understand how the sector can benefit from a range of entry routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised skills with the Department, and this morning I have asked my officials to look at whether universities are producing enough archaeologists. In the last two days, I was at the informal meeting of EU Culture Ministers in Copenhagen, and the Cypriot Culture Minister raised her concern about the pipeline of British archaeologists. Places such as Cyprus rely on the archaeological expertise of the United Kingdom in preserving their own heritage. I will get back to my hon. Friend with more details as that progresses. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced the 75 recipients of the £20 million museum renewal fund. I was delighted that Peterborough city council was awarded £168,000, part of which will help Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery display the world-famous Must Farm bronze-age collections. Everyone should go and see them when they are displayed. My Department is responsible for designating heritage assets through listed buildings and scheduling monuments so that they are protected in law for future generations. In total, Cambridgeshire is home to 59 scheduled bronze-age monuments, mostly bronze-age burial mounds. The most recent is the remains of the Money Hill round barrow cemetery, which was scheduled only last month as a monument. I am delighted that the future of Money Hill is now secured through collaboration between Historic England and East West Rail, another stakeholder, demonstrating how effective planning discussions can ensure that development and heritage protections stand side by side. That is something that we are keen to protect. The neighbouring city of Peterborough is home to a further 23 scheduled bronze-age monuments, including Flag Fen. Preserving and maintaining the rich heritage of Cambridgeshire, or any region across the country, poses challenges, many of which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. In addition to the previously mentioned funding, the Government and their arm’s length bodies, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic England and others, have provided many millions to ensure the safety, maintenance and preservation of not only the region’s bronze-age heritage, but all of Cambridgeshire’s invaluable heritage assets. Since the founding of the National Lottery Heritage Fund in 1994, it alone has awarded £153 million to 897 projects within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority boundaries, which shows the huge importance of that fund. That money has gone towards projects such as Peatland Progress, which received £8.8 million towards uniting the north and south halves of the Great Fen to safeguard biodiversity and support the region’s natural heritage. This Government are committed to ensuring the protection of our wonderful heritage and creating an inclusive national story that reflects the lives of extraordinary people from extraordinary places all over the country. Local heritage is a powerful storyteller, defining who we are and forming the essential cornerstone of our communities. The Government strongly believe in supporting communities to celebrate and adapt the heritage buildings they value, ensuring that they remain as relevant today as they will be tomorrow. Earlier this year, to mark the 60th anniversary of the first arts White Paper, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a massive £270 million investment to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector nationwide.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  These regulations are a small part of a much larger piece of ongoing work within the Department and Ofcom to implement the entire Media Act. That work has cross-party support, and we are looking to take it forward. Ofcom, the public service broadcasters and the Government—including the previous Government—have all been working together to make sure we can get these regulations right for the industry. Question put and agreed to. DRAFT BROADCASTING (INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2025. Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.— (Ian Murray.)

• 29 Oct 2025 · Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Media Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003. Since then, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. The changes introduced by the Media Act are vital to ensuring that our public service broadcasters—PSBs—have the flexibility to serve audiences across the UK with high-quality programmes on a wide range of services. The Department has already begun the process of bringing into force the provisions of the Act, which will modernise the UK’s system of public service broadcasting. These statutory instruments form part of that implementation work, specifically in relation to the PSB quotas and the quota system. As Members may be aware, each PSB operates under a compact, which is an exchange of benefits and obligations. The benefits include guaranteed access to spectrum and prominence on TV guides, and the obligations include quotas, which are quantitative obligations placed on a channel to make and/or broadcast a specified amount of content, such as news and current affairs programmes. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that PSBs produce an appropriate range of content that is relevant to the country and their viewers. The draft instruments relate to three PSB quota obligations. The first is the independent productions quota, which requires PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, which are a key part of the broadcasting and TV production ecosystem. The second is the original productions quota, which requires PSBs to broadcast programmes they have commissioned directly, rather than programmes acquired from others. The third is the regional and national productions quota, which places requirements on public service broadcasters regarding the proportion of programmes made outside London, as well as the proportion of expenditure on making programmes outside London. Currently, the quotas can be delivered only by a PSB’s designated linear channel, such as BBC One, BBC Two or ITV1. In 2020, Ofcom’s previous public service media review, “Small Screen: Big Debate”, concluded that the PSB system, including the quotas, was in need of modernisation. When fully commenced, the Media Act will permit the delivery of PSB quotas via a wide range of other services, including on-demand services such as iPlayer and ITVX, which reflects changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition from on-demand services. The Act also amends the regulatory regime to convert the existing percentage quota to a number-of-hours quota so that it can apply to on-demand programming as well as just the linear channels. The regulations simply introduce the necessary technical tweaks required to implement the changes in the Media Act. The snappily named draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will amend the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to update relevant defined terms to align with the changes made by the Media Act— I hope the shadow Minister is following this. The regulations also confer powers on Ofcom concerning the treatment of repeats in relation to both original and regional and national productions. Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 to update relevant terminology, as set out in the Media Act, and to set the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB. In case anyone is not awake and following this, it will be repeated on BBC Two. The Media Act gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a minimum number of hours for the purposes of the independent production quota for each public service broadcaster. The new modernised quota for each PSB is set out in schedule 1 to the Act, which every member of the Committee has. Given that our public service broadcasters generally outperform their independent production quotas every year, our ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing, non-modernised quota, and to ensure that the quota itself remains fit for purpose and operable for on-demand services. It should be noted that the percentage quota that applies to non-PSBs will remain unchanged. I will quickly mention the role of the regulator, Ofcom. While the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, the task of setting the level of the original and the regional and national productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom itself. Given that Ofcom is responsible for setting the level of these quotas, it was decided that Ofcom should also determine, as part of that process, the treatment of repeats in those areas. This was done to ensure that decisions made about the level of the public service broadcasters’ quotas, and how many times programmes can contribute to them, make operational sense. The regulations therefore require Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas. Furthermore, Ofcom has also been given the power to determine the types of content that can count towards the original productions quota. Ofcom leads this process and has been consulting stakeholders on their terminology and methodology for determining the appropriate levels of the quotas, as well as the treatment of repeats. Ofcom will also continue to be responsible for monitoring the delivery of PSB quotas, as set out in the PSBs’ licences and in agreement with S4C. It will shortly begin the licence variation process to amend the quota conditions in the PSB licences of Channels 3, 4 and 5, which will need to account for these changes to the PSBs’ quotas. The PSBs play a vital role in the UK TV sector and produce high-quality public service content that audiences across the UK value very much. We know that, in a lot of cases, PSBs routinely surpass their quotas, so these regulations are primarily designed to give them the tools to deliver the quotas where the audiences are actually watching the programmes. The Government are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change due to shifts in viewing habits, which poses both opportunities and challenges for PSBs. That is why we are getting on with implementing the Media Act, which delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters. This includes bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, and I commend them both to the Committee.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The chairman of the new regulator declared his donations before the said CMS Committee, which endorsed his chairmanship. Implementing this regime to help to protect clubs in financial peril and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first is a priority for this Government. It was a priority for the previous Government as well, and it has been lost. That is why work is under way to deliver the next phase of the Independent Football Regulator regime as quickly as possible. Defining the exact scope of the Independent Football Regulator is a key step in delivering that. The IFR will need time to get fully up and running. The newly appointed CEO, chair and board members need to build up the staff, continue to consult the industry, work with fans and football clubs and understand the new requirements. The regulator will have heard the shadow Minister’s comments about the burdens on smaller clubs from the National League, and I hope it takes that on board. I am sure that there will be support for that to happen. This Government look forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to deliver the remaining secondary legislation required to enact the Independent Football Regulator’s key powers later this year. In conclusion, people who support football clubs that are not a global product, whether they are in Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, or just go along to their local school pitch on a Saturday morning to watch their eight-year-old kick a ball around, are the lifeblood of football. This is about making sure that the game is sustainable. Let us never, ever have a situation where Government stand on the opposite side of the road while great clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, which are the lifeblood of our communities, go to the wall. Question put.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will take your guidance, Ms Lewell. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, I will say that when the Opposition lose the argument, they do not take the ball, they take the man. I think that that is what we are seeing.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025. It is a great pleasure to serve with you as referee this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I am pleased to speak to the regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 October. This Committee is scheduled for 90 minutes, but I am hopeful that we will take only till half time, if not before—I might get an early bath. The puns probably will not stop there. Given the tight scope of the regulations, there is time for me to mention only one football club, which is Heart of Midlothian, who are currently eight points clear at the top of the Scottish Premier League thanks to a 3-1 win over Celtic on Sunday. That will keep everyone in Edinburgh—or certainly the bigger half of it—happy. Back in July, the Government delivered on our election pledge to set up an Independent Football Regulator through the passing of the Football Governance Act 2025. The regulator is designed to protect football clubs in England only, to empower fans and to keep clubs at the heart of their communities. The regulator is the first of its kind and reflects the important and special place of football in our society and every single one of our communities. It will provide the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth so that English football continues to be the global success that it is. We did not specify in the Act the clubs and competitions that will be within the scope of the regulator. This is in line with how other sports legislation works and will ensure that the regulator is able to react to any changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner. That is a really important point for the Committee to consider. For example, without the regulations the regime could not readily adapt to the restructuring or renaming of leagues, as in 1992 when the First Division became the Premier League, or in 2015 when the Football Conference was renamed the National League—that is the fifth tier of English football. That decision was made in the Act because, as we know, it is quicker and easier to amend legislation through delegated powers than through primary legislation. During the Bill’s passage, there was much discussion about the scope of the regulator, across both Houses. The competitions within scope of the legislation are the same as Tracey Crouch’s 2021 fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government in 2024— I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to that. The statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The scope is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including in the independent fan-led review. I thank everyone who corresponded with the previous Government on that review and, of course, Tracey Crouch for taking it forward. The issues that concern the regulator, such as financial mismanagement, unsuitable owners and the distribution of revenue among leagues, are most prevalent and stark in the top five professional leagues of English men’s football. We do not believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate, and the burdens on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of the regulations. On the possibility of the women’s game being within the scope of the regulator, Karen Carney led an independent review of domestic women’s football that was published in July 2023. Her review recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate rather than moving immediately to statutory regulation. The Government support that recommendation. The systemic financial issues that led to the creation of the legislation for the men’s game are not mirrored in the women’s game, which is at a different stage of development and growth, and we do not feel it is necessary to include it within the scope at this stage. However, the Government acknowledge that the circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act, to be conducted within five years of the commencement of the licensing regime, will look again at the scope to include women’s football if necessary. The Secretary of State can carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope, and would consult the regulator itself, the Football Association and other stakeholders as appropriate. This statutory instrument is another important step in the overall set-up and commencement of the Independent Football Regulator. For too long, football clubs have been mismanaged, been run by unsuitable owners, and not listened to fans. The Government are changing that today.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will start where my hon. Friend finished. The whole point of the Football Regulator and this statutory instrument is to give power back to the fans, for the very specific reasons that he talks about at Sheffield Wednesday. We could all reel off a dozen clubs that have fallen into problems because of ownership in recent history, including Bury, Derby, Bolton, Morecambe and Blackpool. A whole host of clubs have fallen into problems because of the way they were run. Football is a magnet for people who want to invest their money, but it has also become a magnet for people who think they can make some money out of it. Indeed, for many, it is an ego trip. I would maybe even argue that in the case of my own Heart of Midlothian football club, it was a money laundering exercise for the Russian oligarch who held it before. The common thread is that it is the fans who pay the price. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said exactly the same thing in talking about how our football clubs are at the heart of our communities. Before the club went into administration, many Sheffield Wednesday fans would have been completely bereft at the thought of a Saturday afternoon coming along when they would not have to commiserate with each other that Sheffield Wednesday had lost again, at not being able to celebrate the highs as well as the lows, and at having their lives without Sheffield Wednesday. Any football fan will completely appreciate that the fans are the lifeblood of the game. It is famously said that the game is nothing without the fans. The principle behind the Football Regulator—a principle that the shadow Minister used to share—is that football is for the fans, and the fans have in some circumstances have been taken for granted, as we have just heard. That is the whole point of this draft statutory instrument. It is defined in scope, but I am glad, Ms Lewell, that you allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East to make those points slightly wider than scope, because it shows that this is needed in football. Having the Premier League, the Championship, League One and League Two, and the National League as the feeder league into the top four leagues, as part of that is important. They are all covered. I appreciate—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned this, I am sure in the spirit of the game—that this will burden some smaller clubs in the National League with additional responsibilities when they should be running the football club, training the kids and making sure they can have the Harry Kanes of the future—whoever that is. The bottom line, however, is that the National League is feeding the major leagues, and it needs to be part of this to make sure that those clubs are properly run and properly resourced, because it is about sustainability. A sustainable pyramid makes the whole pyramid much stronger. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked if there would be a review. There will be—a review is written into the Act, on the face of the primary legislation. On three up, three down, that is a matter for the footballing authorities and the game itself to resolve, but the strength of the three up, three down argument could be enhanced by having a structure in the National League to mean that the clubs have fit and proper owners, are properly run and are in compliance with the Football Regulator. The regime is very much a light-touch one, and it is important to see that through the lens of not just new owners, but existing owners, looking at football as a whole in those top five leagues in England. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues around the chair of the new Football Regulator. I was delighted that the chair was endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It was really important that that was done. Now the regulator can get on with doing the work, as things have been going on for too long. I am not sure where the Opposition were coming from, because the Act is in essence their legislation. We made a few tweaks to it along the way, and the other place made a few more, and attempted some major tweaks. It is stuff that the shadow Minister used to agree with. In fact, his party made arguments in the past about how important the Football Governance Act would be for football and for sustainability in football, putting the power back in the supporters’ hands where it should lie. Now they say they are not keen on it and that it will jeopardise football: I am not sure what their angle is. Fans across the country will wonder why the previous Government, who introduced this regime through the Tracey Crouch review, are now standing wholeheartedly against it.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Let me address that point directly. I have already been to Northern Ireland and spoken to all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I have also been to the Republic to speak to the Irish Government about the processes that they have. In fact, they are about to introduce a similar scheme, because all EU countries have to have a scheme up and running by 2026. We fully understand the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and nationality in Northern Ireland—that people can be British, Irish or both—and that will all have to be built into the system. As a Government, we have taken on board those legitimate concerns—not the myths. I have heard them directly from all parties in Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that those are resolved as part of the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the consultation to make sure that those are resolved.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up. Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have time. The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions. I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services. The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make some progress and I will give way. I want to read Members this paragraph: “We will develop and establish a trusted and secure service for users to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service. Users will be able to store their information and choose to share it when applying to public services. This will improve a user’s access to services by providing a safe and secure way to prove their identity, while reducing time and cost for the public sector. Additionally, we will develop an inclusive approach for all users to ensure that…services are available for” all, particularly those who are digitally excluded. That is from the Scottish Government in 2021. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire’s own party as the Scottish Government is developing this; it is actually SNP policy. Let me just bust some of the myths. This is not a Brit card. I know that members of the SNP like to call it a Brit card, because that is what gives them traction in the way in which they constitutionally do these things, but it is not a Brit card. And let me just deal with the issue about compulsion and mandation, because everyone stands up and calls this mandatory digital ID. It is not mandatory. That is the wrong thing to say to our constituents. It is not compulsory in this country to have a passport, but one is mandatory to travel. If someone wants to travel on a flight, even an internal flight, in this country, they require that ID to be able to travel. It is not compulsory to hold a passport, but it is mandatory to use one for travel. It is exactly the same in this particular instance. It is not compulsory to have one. People will not be asked to show it; they will not be asked to produce it. There is a whole host of use cases that would be voluntary—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Of course it is a consultation. It is about how we get this right, what it looks like, how it is built, how federated data is secured, how we deal with digital inclusion and how we deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is what the consultation is about. It is about the Government learning from that. [ Interruption. ] Liberal Democrat Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but their own leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said on 21 September that “times have changed”, and that he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal Government had brought in digital ID. He said that if a system was “giving individuals power to access public services”, he could be in favour. Four days later, he said that “the Liberal Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail”. It is the same hypocrisy as the Scottish National party; it was their policy five days before they came out against it.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  A full consultation will be launched by the end of this year. There are two options that the Government could have taken. We could have started from the position of a fully fledged programme, a fully fledged policy, and then taken that out to consultation; or we could take the approach that we are doing at the moment, which is to go out to consultation after we have had some initial consultation with people, so that the formal consultation is shaped by people’s views and the concerns that they raise. I will give two examples, which are from the island of Ireland and from Northern Ireland and in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement. These are things that have to be resolved. We now know they are big issues, and that will go into the consultation to try to resolve them. We cannot have it both ways. We have chosen to take this particular approach in order to develop a consultation—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for his speech. It was a very good speech, but suffered from the big disadvantage of none of it being actually accurate in terms of what the policy is and what digital ID is supposed to be about. Let me start by saying—I mean this seriously and I mean it passionately in my defence of Parliament and Government—that it is okay to debate these things. There is a huge number of people in Westminster Hall today who want to debate this subject. An hour may not be enough, and no doubt we will come back to these issues on several occasions. But there is something that is really important. There is a real task for us all to do as custodians of democracy, which is to have this debate from the perspective of the facts that are out there and not to peddle myths. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said clearly in an intervention that all we have heard is the myths. I hope I can bust some of those myths to give comfort to some of our constituents that this scheme is not what is being portrayed by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and what we have heard in many of the contributions. We have a real responsibility to make sure that we have proper debates—with the facts, not with what we read on social media.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government applaud and support the role that museums play in educating and inspiring audiences, including in Cornwall and across every part of the country in every Member’s constituency. Last week the Government announced that 75 museum groups around the country will benefit from an additional £20 million of funding as part of the museum renewal fund, delivered by Arts Council England. Together with our new £25 million investment in regional museums via the aptly named museum estate and development fund, which is to be announced in the new year, that represents a considerable show of support for local museums across the country, on top of the £44 million allocated by Arts Council England.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DCMS ministerial team and the entire Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is full access to training and skills in the arts. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that project, but if any young person in any part of this land wants to get into the arts, this Government are for them.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There is no specific duty on owners to keep their buildings in a good state of repair, but local authorities have powers under legislation to take action where a listed building may be at risk, through urgent works notices and repairs notices. The Government also support local authorities by providing funding for conservation projects, and they are consulting on reforms to make it easier for homeowners to protect their historic properties while preserving their unique character. There is also the buildings at risk register, and I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to her local authority to see what can be done to help,

• 16 Oct 2025 · Grassroots Music Venues · Hansard source

  More

  Let me correct the record. I did not say that I was a musician; I said that I managed a band. I would not like that to be incorrectly recorded in Hansard . In any case, I thank the hon. Lady for the encouragement. This matter is a priority for this Government to try and resolve. It was mentioned in the UK-EU reset summit agreement. We are working hard with the Paymaster General, who takes forward those negotiations. I am already in touch with the European Commissioner for culture. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will do everything we possibly can to get the agreement and the commitment over the line.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Grassroots Music Venues · Hansard source

  More

  As someone who used to manage a local band called Squeezebox when at university—available at all bad record stores—I understand that grassroots music is the lifeblood of the music industry. The Government have committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows and that money will be ploughed straight into the grassroots music sector. The Government are providing up to £30 million for the music growth package, which will provide further Government support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports.