Louie French MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship again today, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for securing this important debate. It is great to hear from Members from across the House and across the country, and I thank them for championing libraries in their constituencies. Libraries matter; they are one of the few places in public life where people of all ages and backgrounds are welcomed in without cost or condition. Whether it is a child discovering books for the first time, students revising for exams, pensioners playing bridge or Scrabble, or those needing digital support or wi-fi to apply for jobs, libraries quietly meet a range of needs every single day. Baroness Sanderson put it very well in the other place: “no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 12 September 2024; Vol. 839, c. GC128.] — well, apart from maybe to return your book on time. That civic spirit, quiet, constant and universal, defines the best of what public services should be, and demand for libraries nationally continues to highlight this popular public service. Recent published data from DCMS highlights that nearly one in three adults in England—around 13.7 million people—have used a library in the last year. As we all know, libraries are a statutory service under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, and rightly so, but how they are delivered is a matter for local councils. That is consistent with the principles that we Conservatives believe in: local services delivered by local people, community engagement, and fiscal responsibility. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the challenges of funding and provision that local authorities and libraries face. As a former local councillor, I understand the scale of those challenges for many councils, and the new duties and demands on precious resources, but it is not all doom and gloom, as my home area has demonstrated. In my borough of Bexley, the Conservative-run council has built two new state-of-the-art libraries, in Sidcup and Thamesmead. The Sidcup library on the high street has been extremely popular since its opening, with a new cinema, and was very busy when I visited on Saturday to view the fantastic VE Day display arranged by the Lamorbey and Sidcup local history society, alongside brilliant local archive and history volunteers. Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling was home to Roald Dahl for part of his life, as it was for other creative talent such as Quentin Blake, Roger Moore and, perhaps most famous, Gary Oldman, who portrayed Winston Churchill in the motion picture “Darkest Hour”. Lots of entertainment for readers and film fans comes from Bexley, and I hope many will enjoy it during this summer’s reading challenge. I am happy to support the people taking part in that this year in our libraries. Councils across the country have adapted creatively to the challenging backdrop for libraries in the online age. From traditional council-run libraries to commissioned trusts and community-supported services, delivery models have evolved, but the mission remains unchanged: to provide a comprehensive and efficient service that meets the needs of local people. I take this opportunity to thank all library professionals around the country, but particularly those in Bexley and the House of Commons Library, and the incredible volunteers at Blackfen community library in my constituency, which has gone from strength to strength since opening as a real community hub in Blackfen. I am proud to support it throughout the year. That library and the new Sidcup library on the high street highlight the powerful role that libraries can play in generating local economic activity and footfall in town centres. That point has not been made much today, but it is important. In government, the Conservatives supported that evolution. Through the libraries improvement fund, we invested more than £20 million to help modernise buildings, improve digital access and ensure that libraries remained fit for purpose in the 21st century. We commissioned the independent review of English public libraries, excellently led by Baroness Sanderson, which laid out a practical vision for renewal through stronger data, better branding, wider membership and deeper community connections. We supported the idea of a universal library card, a national data hub and closer alignment with institutions such as the British Library to strengthen the sector’s long-term sustainability. This is not about centralisation; it is about enabling the sector to thrive by giving it the tools, visibility and consistency it needs. We must acknowledge the vital role that libraries played during the coronavirus outbreak, which my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned. They moved swiftly online, offering ebooks, streamed activities and virtual learning. In the most difficult circumstances, libraries kept people connected to culture, community and one another. We must be honest though. We understand that local councils face financial pressures, which are being made worse by the Government’s Budget decisions. Bexley council is already £5 million worse off this year, so it has to make more difficult decisions. I encourage councils in that situation to look at the community library model, which has worked well in my constituency and has prevented closures. We must help councils to protect core services while encouraging partnerships, co-location with other services and volunteer engagement where appropriate. I urge the Government to build on the momentum of the cross-party Sanderson review, which provided a road map that balances modernisation with the values that have always underpinned public libraries: access, education, community and trust. It is disappointing that a refreshed public libraries strategy was not published before last year’s general election, but I am sure the Minister agrees that that work must not be lost. This is why we are disappointed that the Minister, Baroness Twycross, has so far avoided giving a direct answer to a direct question on this matter, so I ask the Minister here today: when will his Department publish a strategy for English public libraries, as many Members have called for? I know he understands the need for a new strategy that is informed by data, rooted in localism and underpinned by a longer term vision for this essential local provision. That would allow libraries not just to survive but to flourish in the years ahead. Members on both sides of this House believe in the quiet power of public libraries to educate and inspire, and we stand ready to work across the House to ensure their future is every bit as valuable as their past.

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  One of the key asks from this debate from Members across the House is that the Government publish a national strategy on the back of the Sanderson review. Can I push the Minister to commit to that today?

• 14 May 2025 · Future of Public Libraries · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way briefly?

• 8 May 2025 · St George’s Day and English Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to rise on behalf of the shadow Culture team to mark St George’s day. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate. “With St George in my heart keep me English, with St George in my heart I pray, with St George in my heart keep me English, keep me English till my dying day.” Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud to be English and so should we all. Far from being just a nation of shopkeepers, as wrongly claimed, England’s accomplishments are vast. We have given so much to the world: from the writings of Shakespeare to football, rugby and cricket, and to parliamentary democracy itself in this mother of all Parliaments. England’s history is one of heroes and bravery: Nelson, Wellington, Churchill; good triumphing over evil; freedom overcoming tyranny; and the sacrifices of the greatest generation, which we rightly celebrate this week for VE Day, 80 years on. And we give thanks to our incredible armed forces serving today. We Conservatives are not ashamed to celebrate England’s long and storied history; to remind the world that England is not a sleeping lion, but a proud and great nation ready to roar again. England’s culture is living, breathing and shaped by the people who have called this green and pleasant land home in times gone by, and by all of us today. We should never take that inheritance for granted. Culture matters: it binds us together, gives us a common identity and pride, and it provides the foundations for our civic life. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that one of the most important roles of every Government is to protect and promote the cultural fabric of our nation. St George is more than a figure of legend. As our patron saint, he represents ideals that are woven deeply into the English character: courage, service and honour. His story has inspired generations to stand firm in defence of what is right, and it remains a powerful symbol of national unity and Christian faith. Those values and his inspiration were exemplified by those we commemorate throughout this week with our VE Day celebrations nationwide. While in this House on the anniversary of VE Day itself, I want to recognise the immense sacrifice those veterans made for us. For our tomorrow, they gave their today. Their courage, service and duty must inspire us all in this House. I am a proud uncle today, as my seven-year-old niece took my great-grandfather Jack’s and my great-uncle Bill’s medals to her school party. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote Sir Winston Churchill’s words 80 years ago today: “We were the first, in this ancient island, to draw the sword against tyranny. After a while we were left all alone against the most tremendous military power that has been seen… But every man, woman and child in the country had no thought of quitting the struggle… This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.” I am sure that every Member will have seen how these values are preserved and expressed in not only our institutions, but our everyday lives and throughout our history, traditions, literature and music, and in the spirit of local communities around the country. We must make sure that English culture—both historic and contemporary—is properly supported and celebrated, which means protecting heritage sites, funding grassroots arts, civil society and music, championing English literature in our schools, and giving local communities a stronger voice in how their stories are told and preserved. This is not about nostalgia; it is about an enduring national pride and having the confidence to tell England’s stories, warts and all, and teach the next generation that our past is not to be erased, but to be understood and learned from. We must be clear: English identity is not exclusionary. It is inclusive, civic-minded and rooted in shared experience. From the village green to the city high street, from brass bands to bustling markets, English culture thrives in our community—not in Whitehall, but in areas such as my home of Bexley, and in every town and city across our great country. In this House, we rightly celebrate the Union of our United Kingdom. But England, with its unique blends of peoples, cultures and voices, must never, ever be taken for granted. In this St George’s day debate, the Conservatives will continue to proudly fly the flag not just for tradition’s sake, but for what it represents: an England that is resilient, creative and confident in its future. Let us therefore support and invest in the cultural life of our nation, not only for the obvious economic return, but because our culture is the heart of our nation and we should be proud of it—every field, every hedgerow. Together across this House, let us reaffirm our commitment to telling England’s story—rich, complex and full of hope —with a renewed pride. In closing—if you would indulge me one final time, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will quote Shakespeare’s “Richard II”: “This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This other Eden, demi-paradise, This fortress built by Nature for herself… This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England”.

• 7 May 2025 · India-Pakistan: Escalation · Hansard source

  More

  The barbaric terrorist attacks in Kashmir on innocent Indian and Nepali tourists caused deep distress in my constituency, which is home to many Indian nationals and those of Nepali nationality. I welcome the Minister’s tone about de-escalation—he is getting the tone just about right—but may I also urge him to ensure that none of the escalation of tensions in that part of the world happens here in the UK, and that Hindu temples in particular are offered the same funding and security given to mosques around the country?

• 7 May 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning we learned that Labour’s choice of football regulator, David Kogan, made personal donations to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary. We believe that the Government’s decision not to disclose that fact when Mr Kogan’s appointment was announced constitutes a potential breach of the governance code on public appointments, and represents a clear discourtesy to both this House and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. This appointment clearly puts cronies over clubs and favours over fans, and brings major risks to English football. Can you please advise me on the best way to ensure that this House is able to scrutinise such appointments and ensure that all rules were followed by the Government?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I put on record my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and everyone who has engaged with the process outside the Chamber. Like in politics, in football there is always a risk of scoring an own goal, and the Government have just done that with this Bill. It is plain common sense that a Labour donor and a key crony cannot lead an independent football regulator. It is yet another spectacular own goal by this Labour Government—so bad that one has to question whether match fixing is in play. Is that highly controversial appointment the reason that it has taken so long for Labour to bring the Bill back to this place? For months, this Labour Government have held the ball in the corner, counting down the clock as the Prime Minister enjoys his free prawn sandwiches in a suit paid for by Lord Alli in his free box at Arsenal. So delayed is the Bill that Liverpool have already won the premier league, Leeds and Burnley have already been promoted to the premier league, the Toon Army have ended their long wait for a trophy, Birmingham and Wrexham have been promoted to the championship and a Labour MP has been sent off for punching a constituent in the street. Introducing the Bill in the other place was an attempt to avoid the issue here for as long as possible, and the question that fans across the country will want an answer on is why? Was it because of Labour Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests or because they would not know a football if it hit them in the face? We Conservatives put fans first by launching the independent fan-led review of football governance, which focused on the long-term sustainability of the game. The review stated that this area of regulation should in time be returned to the Football Association. Having spoken to a great many football fans across the country and in my constituency, I can say with confidence that they would agree even more now that Labour is trying to directly interfere in English football. As we have heard, the Government are putting our football clubs’ participation in UEFA-licensed competitions at risk. Does the Minister recognise that one particular area of concern stems from one of UEFA’s fundamental requirements, which is that there should be no Government interference in the running of football? Those are not my words but those of UEFA. Reports also suggest that UEFA has made it clear that it has specific rules to guarantee the autonomy of sport and fairness of sporting competition, the ultimate sanction for which would be excluding any federation from UEFA and teams from competition. Are the Labour Government prepared to be the reason that English football clubs risk being banned from the champions league, the UEFA league, the conference league, the super cup or—even worse—national competitions? Moreover, UEFA, like the Conservative party, reportedly has concerns about scope creep from the Government’s regulator. Our Bill intended that the regulator would oversee the long-term financial sustainability of clubs and help protect fans and heritage assets. However, this new Bill makes it more likely that, once established, the Government’s regulator may expand its mandate beyond those areas and amount to Government interference. If Labour has nothing to hide, it should publish the letters. There are already obvious ways in which the Government’s regulator will increase its own scope. The Minister in the other place was unable to provide a clear answer to questions asked on the following two matters. First, on a concern raised with me by serious and senior football people, where does the Government’s new Bill leave Newcastle United’s Saudi majority owners in relation to the regulator’s powers to investigate club owners? Are the Government saying to all those Newcastle fans who have seen cup glory for the first time in a generation that that will have to stop? Where will the Labour Government’s interference end? Labour and Liberal Democrat peers have voted down Conservative protections for such investment, risking the withdrawal of billions of pounds in investment from clubs. Fans will have heard the comments today from MPs about scope creep in the ownership test. Could the Minister also clarify where this will leave clubs that are involved in multi-club models? For example, Manchester City head a worldwide group of partner clubs, and in 2023 Chelsea acquired a majority stake in the French ligue 1 club Strasbourg. How will the regulator assess these clubs? Will they assess the whole ownership group, in which case they suddenly become an international football regulator, or will they assess only clubs in England, in which case the super-wealthy clubs will simply hide losses in other jurisdictions, as other Members have pointed out. This could directly impact the flourishing women’s game, given the multi-club model in English football. The own goal is already so much bigger than this place and politics. We on this side of the pitch understand football and we know why the independence of a football regulator is so important. The Labour Government do not. Apart from their donor, this Government already have 38 civil servants working on their regulator, making it clear that there is already political and Government interference in the function of football. This legislation and the Government’s action in proposing their own donor, David Kogan, as the chair explicitly and deliberately compromise the FA’s autonomy as the primary regulator of football in England. It is also clear that this compromises the competitiveness of English football in its purest form: using your jumpers for goalposts in the local park and standing on the terraces with family and friends to support your local club. We cannot lose sight of the business side of professional football and the delicate international ecosystem that sees fans from around the world enjoying English football. For example, only a handful of owners in the premier league are actually English these days. This country is a football global powerhouse, and every single one of us benefits, with billions of pounds for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country and tens of thousands of jobs. A phenomenal export, our beautiful game is watched across the world, with the premier league a true British success story that attracts the most fans and the best players and managers. The EFL and the national league are also fantastic competitions enjoyed by many across the country. Football clubs up and down the pyramid are at the heart of our communities and are a force in many people’s lives, so much so that they even have the ability to split family loyalties. That is the case in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, where historically you tend to be either a Millwall or a Charlton supporter. But as any football fan will know, competition across the world is rising fast, not just across Europe but in America, the far east and, of course, the new Saudi league, all of whom want a slice of the premier league’s success. Let’s be honest today: if this Labour regulator had been created many years ago, the premier league and all the benefits that Labour talks about would not exist. Let’s be honest with the fans about that. I understand that the premier league is the first and only domestic competition in the United Kingdom where the international media rights strip out those of the domestic rights deals, and the Government are hitting it hard. As we have heard, the premier league alone will be hit across the course of this Parliament by £250 million of costs by this Labour Government’s Budget of broken promises. All clubs will see their costs increase, first from the Chancellor’s tax rises and secondly from the ever-increasing amount of red tape introduced by this Government and exemplified by this Bill. Football might have changed over the years, but the Labour party has not. A Bill touted as reducing costs for fans does nothing of the sort. In fact, plain as day, it will increase the costs for every fan across the country. The Government can stand at the Dispatch Box today but they know full well that this regulator will increase the cost on fans, so much so that Labour peers voted against an amendment that would have disclosed the true cost of this regulator on football ticket prices. What are the Government trying to hide? I ask the Minister: why is she blocking transparency over ticket prices? Not one Labour MP has been able to say how their regulator will reduce ticket prices for fans across this country. I will conclude, as I am conscious of time and want to give the Minister a chance to speak. This shameful Labour Government have once again put their party first—cronies over clubs, favours over fans, greed over the beautiful game. It seems that the Government have taken inspiration from John Barnes and taken his lyrics too literally when he sung, “They’ll always hit you and hurt you”. I am sure he did not mean that the Government should hit fans with increased ticket prices and hurt English football. The Conservative party is under new leadership and will not shy away from telling the fans the truth. Labour has shamefully cut grassroots sport funding across the country, including the Lionesses fund, and its regulator will mean even higher ticket prices for fans at every level of the game. As every Conservative knows, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We are calling full time on Labour’s shameless power grab over English football, which will certainly see them relegated in the minds of voters and put English football at major risk internationally.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Quite simply, because it is no longer independent.

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  14. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the number of teachers employed in schools.

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by schools in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency that are outraged that Labour’s tax rises are forcing them to cut resources and staff while the Government demand that teachers do more. One teacher told me that, as a proud trade unionist, she had always voted Labour, but feels completely betrayed. She says: “Labour have made the situation in schools 10x worse letting students and teachers down”. She is right, is she not? Labour has betrayed teachers, students and schools.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  21. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  Tool theft has a devastating impact on tradespeople and their families across the country. That is why I am pleased to support the shadow Justice Secretary, Sidcup police, On The Tools, Checkatrade and others in tool-marking initiatives and raids at boot sales where stolen goods are normally sold, but there is more to do across the criminal justice system to tackle this issue. Will the Government support Conservative amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and ensure that these prolific offenders face tougher sentences and tradespeople get the justice they finally deserve?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Rugby League · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am happy to declare it. We lost a lot of games back then. The return of the ashes is welcome news for rugby league, but while the next generation will be inspired by the series, the Labour Government have dropped the ball. Encouraging grassroots participation is key to the future of all sports and community clubs across the country, but Labour has cut the £57 million opening school facilities fund, £21 million of investment in multi-sports grassroots facilities, and ended the £25 million Lionesses futures fund that invested in facilities to support women and girls’ sport. Arguably, the biggest owngoal for grassroots sport is the removal of planning protections for sports pitches across England. Why is it only the Conservatives who will protect grassroots clubs and the sports pitches that Labour wants to concrete over?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the hon. Member’s comments about funding not keeping up with demographic changes. That is a cross-party criticism—not one aimed just at the Labour Government—because the problem is historical. Other price and funding challenges coming through include contract inflation, and the impact of the jobs tax on all local councils. The impact on Bexley council is expected to be around £5 million next year, but the Government are only providing £1.6 million of funding. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must address that issue, as well as the issue of fair funding, to ensure that councils can be financially sustainable?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing today’s important debate. I agree a lot with what he is saying about homelessness and the challenges it creates for London authorities, whether in inner London or outer London, but it prompts the question of why his Government have cut the housing targets for Labour councils in central London.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike. This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs. As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment. These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so. As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [ Interruption. ] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party. In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead. Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure. The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows. The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish. The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup. From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that. I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address. Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility? What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?