Max Wilkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Spring bridge in my constituency was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The previous county council administration put off vital work to fix the bridge after a landslip. What can the Government do to help the current Liberal Democrat administration speed up the work to get it completed, and will the Government encourage the county council to open one lane as soon as possible, for the benefit of businesses and residents who are being put off by diversions?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act. Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another. I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing. The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets? The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills. If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years? The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows? We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  Metaphorically trying to kill, yes. Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  On the point of asylum policy, the Liberal Democrats recently defeated an attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), backed vociferously by the Conservatives, who he is trying to kill, to rip this country out of the ECHR.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ahead of the Budget next week, the Labour Chancellor departed from years of silence on the matter by admitting that Brexit has been a disaster for our economy. Will the Labour Home Secretary follow the Chancellor’s lead by admitting that Brexit has also caused significant harm to this country’s ability to maintain order in our immigration and asylum system?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Maternity services are a vital part of women’s healthcare, but sadly too many women are being failed. At Cheltenham general hospital, the Aveta birth centre was temporarily closed for labour and births back in 2022. Last week we learned that there will be no decision about a potential plan for reopening it until spring next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that four years is far too long to ask local mums-to-be to wait, and will he reassure me that the temporary downgrade made under the Conservatives will not be made permanent under his Government?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm. After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division. The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear? Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  We share the Minister’s concern about the approach of the official Opposition. Clearly, they left us with this mess and now they feign outrage. It appears that this Government’s proposal, sadly, is to decant asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Instead, they should be tackling the real issue: speeding up asylum decisions so that those with no right to stay are returned and those with a valid claim can work, pay tax and integrate. I will pick up the Minister’s point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I offered a much better alternative form of accommodation somewhere else nearby. As I found out, the Home Office was determined to open a hotel, because that alternative was not taken up. The alternative accommodation would have been more appropriate, and my constituency feels let down. The Government have promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet they have put forward no credible plan to achieve that. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. Will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? Will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he has put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay, or does it simply mean shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will he share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of Army barracks that are in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? Finally, will he concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones to seek safety in Europe and onward unsafely on to boats in the English channel?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  We congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward this debate. Given recent news headlines about their own weaknesses on this issue, doing so is what Sir Humphrey would describe as a “courageous decision”. As the third party spokesperson, I feel obliged to play the role of a marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides—the Government and the official Opposition—to concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground. The Government and the official Opposition truly have more common ground on this issue than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the DNSA’s evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer still in yesterday’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative party when it was in government and the Labour Government today. The Conservative party will not admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the Government are entirely to blame, which is a laudable aim for any Opposition party. The Labour party cannot admit it, because it cannot publicly concede that its position on a matter central to our national security interests is the same as that of the Conservative Government they replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or able to do so. While some of their brave Back Benchers spoke out when the Conservatives were in government, the machinery of the Government were keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish. At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China because our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth is that Conservatives and their allies aligned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cut us adrift from the EU, and they have left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be. We find ourselves in a position where the Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission. The Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation that has agreed a “no limits” partnership with Putin, despite Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just 10 days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the Government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of “consequences” if the Government did not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position, caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by Conservative and Reform Members, influencing the Government’s decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise. I would draw a comparison between that and the Government’s position on Russia, which has been listed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Given the “no limits” relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the Government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution, even absent the word “enemy”. The fact that the word “enemy” appeared on the original draft witness statement but was later removed again raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government. The public deserve clear answers not just from those on the Government Front Bench, but from those on the official Opposition’s Front Bench. Did the DNSA meet Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement? This House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service. The DNSA’s witness statement referenced “backchannels” used to dissuade those two Members from criticising Confucius institutes in the UK. The Security Minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the Members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister let us know from the Dispatch Box what this Government’s understanding of the word “backchannel” is in that context? Does the word “backchannel” refer to the previous Government’s Whips, officials or others? The public deserve to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking questions. If the Minister cannot let us know, perhaps someone on the Conservative Front Bench or anywhere else on the official Opposition Benches could clarify that for the House. Finally, I turn to the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of this trial. The Government are adamant that the failure to designate China as an “enemy” is central to the failure to prosecute. I have already addressed the question of how that word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous Government, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the Roussev case, which was referenced earlier, that was being prosecuted at the same time. In that instance, the judge stated that “any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.” The outcome of that case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals last July for operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer about why the China case fell apart when the term “enemy” was not an issue for the Roussev case as recently as last July. Transparency and independence in national security decisions are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy at a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation’s confidence in the Government’s approach to relations with China. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy caused the collapse of this case.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun. The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve. Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  What a mess. We have three questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he had with all relevant parliamentary authorities—that might include the Speaker’s Office—about plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff to ensure this does not happen again? Secondly, in the witness statements released by this Government, there is a reference to the use by the previous Government of “back channels” to attempt to dissuade the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from raising concerns about Confucius institutes. What is the Minister’s understanding, based on the evidence, statements and any other information available, of the meaning of “back channels” in that context? Does it refer to the previous Government’s Whips Office, Government officials or somebody else? Thirdly, given that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson still refuses today to say that China is a threat to Britain’s national security, would the Minister be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party or any nations allied to China?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Over the weekend, Sir John Sawers became the latest former intelligence chief to express disbelief at the collapse of this espionage case, and our intelligence allies are now also questioning whether the UK can be trusted to counter China’s growing threat. It is vital that we have a clear answer about who in Government is responsible for the failure to bring this case to trial. Sadly, instead of clear answers, over the weekend we have heard Ministers delivering vague and cryptic lines to take. The nation has a right to understand which figures within Government were involved in the process not to proceed with a prosecution. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government have not concealed the evidence or suppressed anything, will the Minister commit to publishing a timeline showing who knew what and when, and who said what and when? Will he publish correspondence between all officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS? If he will do that, we can gain the clarity that we and the British public need. Will the Minister confirm again, with full confidence, that the Prime Minister, or any individuals who act on his behalf, played no role in any decision to prevent the supply of relevant evidence to the CPS, which might or might not include words of gentle encouragement either way? We must learn the lessons from this appalling episode so that we can have confidence in the ability of our national security laws to protect our interests and protect our democracy. That is our job in this House. This is the only way to provide the British public with the answers that they deserve and demand, and to rebuild the UK’s credibility with Five Eyes allies. Will the Government commit today to holding a statutory independent inquiry into the China spying case? We know that China poses a clear threat to this country’s interests and values, a view that is shared by Liberal Democrat Members, as well as by our intelligence chiefs. Yet the Government’s approach to this case is only the latest example of their unwillingness to challenge Beijing’s efforts to expand its espionage capabilities in the UK and export transnational repression to our shores. It is time for the Government to take the steps necessary to protect our interests and those of our citizens. Working with the CPS, will the Government look at all legislative options to prosecute the two individuals involved? Those options are still available. Will the Government block the application for the Chinese mega-embassy? And will the Minister add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. This is my first duty as my party’s home affairs spokesperson; I only wish that it was not in response to such a tragedy. My party’s thoughts are with the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were tragically killed. Our thoughts are also with those who were injured, the congregation, and the wider Jewish community, which was the target of a vicious attack on its holiest day, Yom Kippur. We must all be clear that the attack did not happen in a vacuum. Antisemitism is widespread on Britain’s streets, and British Jews have been living in fear, particularly since Hamas’s horrific terror attacks of 7 October 2023. The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring that our Jewish friends and neighbours feel safe walking the streets and worshipping in their synagogues. Those who spread antisemitic hatred or incite violence against Jews, whether online, at marches or elsewhere, must be stopped. That is never acceptable. I thank the Community Security Trust, as the shadow Home Secretary did, for the incredible job that it does, working with the police, to protect the Jewish community across our country. I praise its collaboration with organisations such as Tell MAMA, with which it shares best practice so that both the Jewish community and the Muslim community can be better protected. I look forward to visiting the CST’s headquarters in the near future as one of my first duties in this role. We cannot ignore the issue of protests. The right to peaceful protest is a cornerstone of our democracy, and it is a right that the Liberal Democrats will always protect, but we are also acutely aware of the fear felt by the Jewish community and the harassment that they have felt at some marches. Too often we have seen marches hijacked by people spreading antisemitism and inciting violence against Jews; we saw it even on the night of this appalling attack. My party is unequivocal in its view that those who incite antisemitism and carry it out must be met with the full force of the law. I say this advisedly, Mr Speaker: unfortunately, the Government’s recent decisions have led to police arresting pensioners for holding up cardboard signs when they should be protecting all communities, including the Jewish community, from those who would cause harm. This undermines the right to protest and, crucially, means that the police are using their time and resources on other things when they should be protecting people. The British Jewish community should not have to suffer violence or live in fear simply because of their identity. We need less “thoughts and prayers” and more action. Will the Home Secretary confirm what additional physical security the Home Office has provided for the Jewish community since the attack? We must also tackle the underlying root of modern-day antisemitism in this country. If the conversations we have make us feel squeamish and lead us to ask questions that prompt discomforting answers—as questions that I have asked recently have done—that is all the more reason to have them, and to have them more often. Will the Home Secretary, with the Prime Minister, convene a summit of interfaith leaders, communal bodies, education heads and the security services to really get a grip of the ever-growing crisis of antisemitism? Antisemitism, terrorism and hatred can be defeated, but only if we stand united against them and stand for the values that we as British people hold so dear.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern about the possibility that the Prime Minister will discuss this issue with President Trump later in the week? The Prime Minister has to have influence over President Trump for very good reasons, but if the issue of Lord Mandelson’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein comes up—we understand that President Trump also contributed to that birthday book, with an infamous poem—what is the Prime Minister going to say?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Transport: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Junction 10 of the M5 on the edge of my constituency is a key piece of transport infrastructure that can unlock growth, thousands of new jobs—it is adjacent to GCHQ, and so can support national cyber-security and intelligence work—and housing growth, which the Government have made a key priority. As a result of delays, there is a huge funding gap, amounting to about £70 million. Can Ministers have a word with their colleagues at Homes England and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to work out how that gap can be fixed, so that we can deliver those new homes, which are much needed, and the jobs too?

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate. Railways are a hugely important part of our national story, and an important factor in the economic success of Britain and the region that we are discussing today. The development of the Stockton and Darlington railway was one of Britain’s greatest industrial feats. It pioneered the creation of the modern railway system, allowing people to travel faster than before in a carriage that was wonderfully named “Experiment.” The existence of the Stockton and Darlington railway helped the development of steam trains, including Stephenson’s Locomotion No. 1, which was the first locomotive to travel on the railway. There followed some of the most incredible feats of engineering, including Stephenson’s Rocket, the Flying Scotsman and the Mallard. It is a testament to the enduring legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway that last year—200 years later, and despite all the subsequent technological advancements —Brits took over 1.7 billion railway journeys. It is right that we pay homage to where it all began, on the original Stockton and Darlington railway, which served as a catalyst for a rail revolution across the country. As we reflect on the legacy of Stockton and Darlington, we must also ensure that rail continues to deliver for passengers in the 21st century. Today, unfortunately, rail passengers do not always receive the service they deserve, after years of failed privatisation. Services are unreliable and subject to cancellations and delays. When they do run, they are often uncomfortably overcrowded. By contrast, when I travel on my local heritage railway, it is never delayed; it is run by volunteers, but always runs on time. The current situation is particularly challenging to accept on the mainline railways, given the fare rises that we all have to put up with. Meanwhile, fare dodging regularly goes unpunished, as Conservative leadership hopefuls are often keen to point out. The former Conservative Government planned to use this anniversary to encourage people to take up roles in the railway industry, through education, through tourism, and through the celebration of railway workers and enthusiasts. I hope that the current Government will seize on this anniversary as an opportunity to deliver better railways for passengers, with expanded connectivity, particularly to the north of England, which has had a very raw deal over a very long period. I know that, from having travelled on rail in the north of England. But let us face it—on any rail journeys that are not to or from London, we tend to get a poor deal. The Government must be far more proactive in the sanctioning of those train operators who cannot provide a high-quality service. Of course, some of them will cease to exist when Great British Railways comes fully on stream, but we should not forget—

• 10 Sept 2025 · Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary Festival · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Stringer. Then I shall skip over my anecdote about the excellent Pullin’s Bakery fruit cake served on Great Western Railway services—I hope colleagues in the north also enjoy such delicacies. I have spent many hours on heritage railways, and I believe they give us the important points we need to focus on for railways today. The Stockton and Darlington railway that we are discussing today revolutionised our country 200 years ago. Railways still play a central role in our modern economy, but for too long passengers have felt that they are not getting the services they deserve. The best tribute we could pay to George Stephenson and the legacy of the Stockton and Darlington railway is to modernise our current infrastructure, bring fares down and expand connectivity. In celebrating 200 years of the Stockton and Darlington railway, let us invoke the spirit of George Stephenson and seek to deliver exactly that.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all hon. Members for turning up for the debate. I have 12 minutes left, so I will take hon. Members through a rundown of my debut for the Uphill Castle cricket club under-13s back in 1997—it was a special occasion. I jest, of course. This has been an important and instructive debate and there is a lot of common ground. I will quickly reflect on the point about “free to air”. It was in the title of the debate, but as we have heard free to air and broadcast coverage that is not free to air have a huge impact on how cricket is consumed, participation levels and the cricket calendar. The point I was attempting to draw out about the Hundred is that, although it has been a success in getting more cricket broadcast on free to air, there have been unintended consequences. That is the point that the ECB and everyone with an interest in cricket needs to work to unravel. Reflecting on the Minister’s comment on cricket books, such as “Michael Parkinson on Cricket”, I can recommend —if she is up for a cricket read—Geoffrey Boycott’s “Opening Up”, which is one of the best, and “Boycott on Cricket”: two excellent summer reads. I join the Minister in saying that it is good news that the ECB is investing in domes; clearly, with the changeable weather in this country, we need many more of them. Domes are obviously useful for winter nets for young people, too. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), set out the scale of the improvement in participation numbers, but clearly there is a wave here. Although in recent years participation has gone up a little bit—even quite a lot in some years, in which we have seen spikes in participation—the trend over the last 20 years or so has been downwards. That is what I think the ECB is trying to address by increasing participation and interest in cricket via the Hundred. I will just reflect briefly on what various Members have said. The points about elitism, class, access and the availability of cricket to everyone are not lost on me. I went to a school where we played only one cricket fixture in five years and of course we got absolutely tonked in that one fixture. I do understand those points. I had to get all of my cricket by playing at a local club, Uphill Castle, and I am extremely grateful to all the coaches who gave their time there. Of course, increasing availability will come down to the levels of investment that the Government are making in education, the availability of PE teachers and the availability of sports pitches. Planning was also raised during this debate; it is an important point. I would really hate for the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) to leave this debate thinking that I am one of those people who spends my whole time ranting about the Hundred and saying that we must abandon the tournament. That was not the purpose of this debate. I have many friends who tell me repeatedly that the Hundred must be stopped immediately, but that is not my view. I have been to watch the Hundred. Indeed, as a Hundred orphan, I had to go all the way to London to watch London Spirit play, because I have no local team. There needs to be a lot more thought about how the ECB reworks the cricket calendar, so that in a few years’ time, when my daughter goes to school, we will have an opportunity to go and watch some cricket in the school holidays. At the moment, it is really difficult; it will be the Hundred or nothing and we do not have a team in the Hundred. We would have to come all the way back to London, or go to Birmingham, or Wales, or maybe even Leeds—somewhere else.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation · Hansard source

  More

  Lancashire, perhaps—yes, to Manchester. Those are real issues that will have an impact on young people’s participation in cricket and so many people’s enjoyment of cricket. We need to think for much longer about how the calendar can work for everyone, whether that means the young people who want to go and watch cricket during their school holidays, or the old gents and ladies who attend games with their cheese and pickle sandwiches and their weak lemon squash, sitting all day in the sunshine watching the sport they love. That is the thing that I think is so special about cricket and it is why I love red ball and county championship cricket. I thank all the Members who have taken part in this debate for their contributions and I thank you for chairing it, Ms McVey. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of free to air broadcasting on cricket participation. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I don’t like cricket—I love it. How could I not love a sport that has given me the joy of the 2005 Ashes series, an England victory in the 2019 world cup and so many long afternoons in the sunshine, sometimes with whites on, sometimes with a real ale in my hand, and sometimes both at the same time? It is a sport that reminds us of patience, perseverance, heritage and tradition, and—rare in a world now dominated by doom scrolling and a 24/7 news cycle—the virtue of delayed gratification. The English cricket calendar, however, has undergone a major change in my lifetime, particularly in the last few years. The season is now crowded, in large part due to the introduction of the Hundred: a competition focused on the search for a format that would work for that elusive thing, a new audience. We, of course, all applaud the England and Wales Cricket Board for searching for that audience. At the outset I should state that I am open-minded about different forms of cricket. I enjoy all of it, but it is very strange that we have so many different formats in this country: five days for a test match, four days for the county championship, a 50-over competition, a 20-over competition, and now the Hundred, a new 100-ball contest run to a completely different pattern of play and contested by new franchises with which few long-standing cricket fans have any affinity. But it has brought new people in to follow the game—younger people.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will congratulate Somerset. As a Gloucestershire fan, I can tell the room that I was a member at Somerset as a student. It was an excellent deal, and we used to travel from Weston-super-Mare to sit in the ground at Taunton. I spent many fun days there. It is a pity that Somerset triumphed over Gloucestershire this summer, but we will have to look past that. Let us start with the good news about the Hundred. Although the debate is sometimes shrill and the suggestion is that it has been a total disaster, there have been some good points to the Hundred. It is pretty much the only high-profile cricket available on traditional free-to-air television, although some of the one-day internationals are on free to air too. The model has undeniably helped to fund the wider sport with new income. It has promoted the women’s game and there is more income for disabled cricket as well. The sale of franchises has brought new investment, which has been shared among the traditional counties. That success is to be welcomed, but it has not come without cost—I know that cost is acknowledged in the sport. Even as somebody who is open-minded, I feel somewhat alienated by the Hundred. There is no team competing in the Hundred that represents my town, my county, or indeed the entire west region. For those who have suggested that the Welsh Fire is the west’s team, I beg to differ. I suspect Welsh cricket fans will be pleased to hear me say that I am not going to attend Sophia Gardens to support the Welsh Fire any time soon. The creation of the Hundred means four-day county cricket has been pushed to the peripheries of the season, with August reserved for the short form of the game, although this year the amazing end to the final England-India test did just creep into the start of August, into the summer holiday period. As a knock-on effect, it is argued by many in the game that time and player availability for county championship cricket, which is crucial for test match preparation, has been greatly cut back. It is worrying to see the bedrock of the sport being pushed to the margins in that way. The fans who attend their county grounds and many of those involved in the administration of cricket at all levels could be forgiven for feeling overlooked and ignored. I have heard from many of those people. What of the impact on the choices forced on test match players who deserve opportunities for time in the middle? What about the impact on the One-Day cup, which will never gather as much attention in August as the Hundred, despite serving up some absolutely brilliant cricket?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes some really good points that have been rehearsed by cricket commentators over the last few years. I believe we have to bear that point in mind, and I may come on to it a little later. It is no secret that this jumble of the calendar has profound consequences. As I said at the beginning, the ECB is doing the right thing by looking for new audiences, increased participation and more cricket on television. It might argue that participation is increasing as a result of the Hundred and the investment brought about by deals with subscription channels for test matches and other forms of cricket. Indeed, there is clear evidence that watching sport leads to increased participation and more money flowing into the game. The ECB reported a 61% increase in amateur cricket club membership following England’s victory at the 2019 world cup. Sadly, however, these days only a handful of free-to-air cricket matches are available each year in the traditional media, and county club cricket takes a variable approach to broadcast. We should consider the wider consequences of the situation. It is a jumbled calendar with multiple different formats that are confusing to many and a lack of free-to-air broadcast. That cumulative impact risks alienating existing fans while reducing the number of younger people engaging with different forms of the game that are not the short-form Hundred, and making it harder for our test team to thrive. It also puts at risk the long-term sustainability of the county game. Peter Matthews, chair of Gloucestershire county cricket club, told me: “Cricket needs to be played at a time when the next generation can be encouraged to go. If this isn’t the case, it will continue to be watched by retired folk and will not grow a new audience. This means that weekends and school holidays are important. Right now, there is very little county cricket in the school holidays, other than ‘The Hundred’ (only at eight venues) and the One Day Cup. Non-hosts have a total of four days home cricket at the height of summer. This cannot be helpful commercially or for developing the next generation of cricket lovers.” That is a warning from the chair of a club that is doing a lot of good work with the ECB to make cricket more accessible for all through the Gloucestershire cricket talent pathway. That warning comes as state school cricket continues to suffer decline, bringing about the opposite of the ECB’s aim to increase participation. Peter also told me about the difficulties presented to those counties that retain much-loved out-ground festivals. The Cheltenham cricket festival is the world’s longest-running out-ground festival, having started in 1872. These out-ground festivals bring cricket closer to communities and should be encouraged, but they risk falling victim to ever-higher running costs and an overcrowded cricket calendar. The Liberal Democrats believe in giving sport back to the fans, which is why we are calling on the Government, the ECB and others to act. We favour taking the more televised fixtures out from behind paywalls. We favour boosting participation by investing in grassroots facilities—I know the ECB is doing that with new indoor domes. We favour supporting community sports clubs too. While the Government clearly cannot interfere in the governance of sport, and I am not suggesting that they should, the nation’s shared interest in cricket should provide Ministers and Members with an important opportunity to engages with the ECB and all others in cricket authority about options that lower barriers to participation, including discussions about the cricket calendar. Finally, we should consider whether the apparent commercial success of the Hundred might have been achieved by other means. Could the T20 Blast have been adapted to bring new revenues and audiences? Will it be adapted like that in future? Could the Blast and the Hundred be combined or tweaked in a way that protects the traditional forms of the game while retaining new audiences, perhaps with some cricket broadcast via a free-to-air model? The Hundred came about after a well-meaning discussion about participation and audiences, but the challenges that cricket faces as a sport are nothing new. As David “Bumble” Lloyd recently told the excellent “Sports Agents” podcast, “the game has been dying since I started in 1963.” That game has constantly adapted to survive. Those with longer memories will recall the fierce debate when limited-overs cricket was introduced in the first place, but at least those formats took the existing pattern of play, making it easier for fans of traditional cricket to understand what was going on. If we can properly balance the cricketing schedule to bring county cricket back into focus, the game can protect its local links and cricket will continue to thrive. We must ask whether the long-term prosperity of the game, the counties and the England team is best served by the continuation of the Hundred in its current form—that is, distinct from the continuation of the Hundred at all. As part of the discussion we must of course focus on the test game, or we put at risk exactly the sort of moments that cricket fans cherish the most: Shane Warne’s ball of the century, Graham Thorpe batting in the dark in Karachi, the heroics of Chris Woakes coming out to bat with one arm in a sling, the 2019 Headingley test match and my favourite, the 2005 Ashes series—I was there for the day when we won at the Oval. Without those kind of moments, cricket ceases to be the special game it is.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  Nobody would support the violent actions of some of the people in Palestine Action, of course, but the number of arrests is placing huge pressure on our police. The demographic of those arrested is clearly absurd. The nature of what they are doing is holding a placard in response to the horrors they are seeing on their televisions. We are all, in this House, seeing those horrors. The previous Home Secretary said that many of the people who support the group do not know the nature of the more violent elements of it. Given the apparent imbalance of what we are seeing, is the Minister not concerned that it creates a dangerous precedent when, in future, we try to enforce against people who are actually terrorists and have malign intent on our streets?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Future of Terrestrial Television · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate. Who can forget the historic moments that we saw on terrestrial television? We watched the fall of the Berlin wall, and the aftermath of the death of Princess Diana. We watched Gazza’s tears. We watched the moon landings. And we watched Del Boy fall through the bar on “Only Fools and Horses”. Such history. Terrestrial television is a technology that has changed our experience of the world around us in our own living rooms. That is something very special. Despite the pace of technological change, terrestrial television remains the window to the wider world for so many people. It is a means of staying connected to news and culture. It is companionship, particularly for those who live alone. At its best, television is a source of national unity, whether during a royal wedding or on those occasions when our national sports teams do well. We must, therefore, ensure that Britain’s broadcasting infrastructure is fit for purpose. As things stand, that is not guaranteed for too many households after the switch-off. Around 17% of British households—nearly one in five—still rely on digital terrestrial television, known as Freeview. Those households are disproportionately on lower incomes and disproportionately live in the north of England, in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland—all nations and regions represented in this debate. They are more likely to be older, disabled, living alone and female. That sets the context for the challenge that faces us and the Government. These are the people who risk being left behind if Freeview disappears without a proper plan for what comes next. Ofcom’s 2024 report on the future of Freeview found that fewer people are watching television via terrestrial platforms. That is no surprise: many of us now almost never switch on to watch shows as they are broadcast, favouring on demand services instead. That trend is expected to accelerate, and the threats to public service broadcasters from many manufacturers’ approach to prominence are now well known and discussed. However, the very same broadcasters that are worried about that also worry about the cost of maintaining distribution infrastructure—much of it, for terrestrial television, dating back decades. We worry that eventually they will conclude that the benefits are outweighed by the costs. The Ofcom report sets out three broad choices for the Government: invest in a more efficient, leaner Freeview system; reduce Freeview to a smaller, core service; or prepare for a complete switch-off in the 2030s. Further Ofcom research found that fewer than a quarter of participants believed they would struggle if Freeview disappeared—but a quarter is one in four. Instead, the main challenges reported were the financial barriers that other Members have mentioned today, including the hundreds of extra pounds that people have to pay for a good internet connection; the fact that a good internet connection may not even be available in their area; unreliable internet that already exists; and technical difficulties, which are a barrier to older people. Like any other sector, the television industry must adapt to new technologies. It is already doing so at some pace, and it should be applauded for that. It must also be placed on a sustainable financial footing. However, although the transition will inevitably run at pace, it cannot be allowed to leave the poorest and most vulnerable without a lifeline. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set out a comprehensive plan that ensures that those who are most reliant on Freeview are not left behind. This is not a controversial viewpoint, and it is one that has been expressed by Members across the Chamber today. It means ensuring affordable and accessible alternatives for those who currently rely on Freeview, or an extension of Freeview itself. It means offering practical support to people who may struggle with digital technology. It also means investing in reliable broadband, so that rural and disadvantaged areas are not cut off. Those steps would ensure that vulnerable people, particularly the elderly and those living alone, continue to have that window to the world, so that they can see the news and weather, watch chat shows and be entertained—perhaps with their dog or cat on their lap, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. These principles are best illustrated by the BBC’s founding mantra: to inform, educate and entertain. Those words must guide us still today, whether or not we like what the BBC does every day. This debate is not only about profit and financial sustainability, but about the fabric of our society. Disinformation is a real threat to societal cohesion, as we saw last year with the riots in Southport and elsewhere. If barriers to access mean that television ceases to be a shared cultural space, we will all be the poorer for it, particularly if fewer people are able to access reliable news programmes on regulated public service broadcasters. For British broadcasting to remain a source of connection and pride, as it is in this country, our Government—whichever party is in charge—must not leave households staring at a blank screen. We must invest in a fair transition that safeguards the vulnerable. Television has defined our culture for generations. With careful planning, proper investment and fairness at the heart of what we do, we can ensure a smooth transition that keeps the most vulnerable in our society connected.