Nigel Huddleston MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport that forms the basis of today’s debate. I also thank everybody for their contributions today. This important report has highlighted the concerning reality that England’s community and school sport system is not currently delivering either the opportunities that people want or the benefits that we know sport can provide. All too often, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the sectors it oversees are dismissed as “nice to haves” or a bit fluffy, when in fact they are pivotal—indeed, essential—to our economy and society. DCMS sectors—sport, culture, tourism, film, TV, music, heritage, civil society and much more—enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling, while supporting over 5 million jobs in the UK and generating well over £220DCMS’s total expenditure fell 3.3% from 2023-24. The Government have chosen to abolish the National Citizen Service, to undermine horseracing and legitimate gambling, and to cut spending on tourism promotion, on business events, on listed places of worship and even on school sport, while implementing policies that are loading up costs on DCMS sectors, especially through tax rises. The business rates and national insurance rises are decimating DCMS sectors, depriving tens of thousands of young people of their first job opportunity and causing unemployment. Of the nearly 200,000 job losses since Labour came to power, over half were in tourism and hospitality and many of them involved young people. I respect the Minister, and have a lot of time for her, and many of those things were not her Department’s decisions, and that must be intensely frustrating. We all understand the benefits of an active population. When children are active from an early age, they develop confidence, resilience and social skills, and are more likely to enjoy better mental health, improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. If we fail to give every child the opportunity to be active, we risk storing up significant challenges for the future, from rising obesity and poorer mental health to greater pressure on our NHS. Allowing even more development on sports fields and playgrounds is clearly not going to help. The evidence is clear that there is strong public demand for sport provision, but as the report highlights, fragmented policy, inadequate investment and poor cross-Government co-ordination are preventing sport from delivering its full potential—whether improving health outcomes, supporting children’s development, strengthening communities or contributing to economic growth. There is also a gender dimension to this issue, as the Chair of the Select Committee outlined and as a recent report by Sky demonstrated. Investment in sport delivers some of the clearest returns of any area of public spending: Sport England estimates that every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 in social and economic value. The Government announced in January that they were investing £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the country as part of a £400 million boost for grassroots sport facilities by 2030. However, the £400 million figure is the same amount that we announced when we were in government, so thanks to inflation, it is a real-terms cut. There is also little detail on who will receive the money and when. Many sports governing bodies, including those for cricket, swimming and tennis, say that they have plenty of projects that are ready to go, but without clarity on funding, they cannot pull the trigger on key projects across the country. I have particular concerns about school sport, where there has clearly been a bunfight between the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and DCMS about funding. The Government announced £1 billion for school sport over the next three years, but the devil is in the detail. The Department for Education announced that the £320 million annual PE and sport premium for primary schools will be scrapped in favour of a new partnership network. Let us be clear: that is a cut. In fact, it leaves schools around 22% less well off in terms of annual funding than the current scheme. As the report outlined, we need structural reform, sustained investment, clear accountability and a joined-up national strategy. The Government have committed to publishing a national plan for physical activity later this year, and we look forward to scrutinising it. Sport and physical activity cannot solve every challenge facing young people, but they can be one of the most powerful tools for improving health, building confidence, developing skills and strengthening communities. Investment matters—of course it does—but we also need a long-term plan and structural reform. The Committee has provided Ministers with a road map; the challenge is whether the Government have the ambition to follow it.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that. Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that? We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out? The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter? Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the publication of the media Green Paper.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Secretary of State’s introductory comments and congratulate England and Scotland on a great start to the world cup. Since coming to power, this Government have cut funding for school sport, listed places of worship, tourism marketing and so much more, yet they have found billions for welfare, Chagos and inflation-busting pay rises for their union mates. Last Sunday, the Secretary of State went on telly to say that she was in discussions about cutting DCMS spending even further. Well, where and when? And who is to blame: is it the Prime Minister, for his weakness and failure to tackle welfare spending, or is it the Chancellor, for her utter economic incompetence?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The Royal Albert Hall is a vital part of our tourism ecosystem, our cultural history and our cultural offering. Therefore, my final comment is an offer to the Minister. I am one of the biggest supporters of the arts, culture and heritage, and am very proud to be so, but I sometimes wonder when we have such debates whether it is truly appropriate in this day and age for us to discuss in this Chamber, when there are other demands on our time, the minutiae of the internal dynamics, operations and rule changes in certain institutions. When they were set up and established in other centuries, Parliament was the right vehicle to have such discussions, but I wonder whether it is the right vehicle now. If the Minister—or indeed the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) or others—wishes to discuss, once this has been resolved, whether there is a broader debate to be had about some of the ecclesiastical, heritage and academic institutions where Parliament still needs to arbitrate on what, at the end of the day, are internal operational decisions, I would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether that is an appropriate debate to have in this place.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  If we do divide today, I shall be supporting this Bill, primarily for the reason that mentioned in its introduction: today we are debating whether to reintroduce the Bill. If we choose to do so, there will be plenty of opportunity to debate it at a later stage, and it appears that several Members want to do just that. Given that the debate has swayed into the substance of the Bill, I should say that I am one of the former Ministers who oversaw the implementation and execution of the culture recovery fund, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), when we were in government—something that I am very proud of.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas. The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events. The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games. For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on. Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one. We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future. As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world. Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster. As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too. Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous. We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Tourism Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Tourism and hospitality businesses across the UK are struggling. Once profitable businesses are now letting people go, not hiring or closing altogether as a direct result of Labour’s policies, in particular the national insurance increases. That has led to 100,000 job losses in the UK in hospitality and tourism alone over the last two years. The Government have cut funding to our tourism bodies and are now planning on imposing more regulations and a whole new tourism tax. Can the Minister please explain how on earth less support, more regulations and higher taxes are meant to help the tourism industry?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  William Hill announced that it is closing 200 betting shops as a result of Labour’s tax policies making them unsustainable. That is Labour’s decisions creating yet more unemployment and undermining sponsorship opportunities and the finances of the horseracing industry overall. Labour may not be as bad as the Greens or Plaid, which I understand want to ban altogether horseracing—a £4 billion industry—and I think greyhound racing, too. Can the Minister assure the racing and gambling communities that the Government will not do any more damage to these sectors, which bring joy to millions of Brits every week?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and speaking so wisely, enthusiastically and knowledgeably about the sector in his opening remarks; to the relief of everybody, that means that I will not speak as long as I originally thought I would. I have to start with a basic question to the Minister: what do the Labour Government have against the tourism industry? I mean that in all seriousness because, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, we have seen more than 200,000 job losses, and more than half of them have been in the tourism and hospitality sector. Why does that sector seem to be singled out for additional taxes on top of the burdensome ones already imposed across the breadth of the private sector? Why does the tourism sector seem to be particularly paying the price, especially given how important it is to the UK economy? It brings joy to millions of people—both domestic and overseas visitors—every year, generates more than £147 billion in economic activity and employs well over 2 million people—about 3.5 million, if we include the broader tourism and hospitality sector. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, it is also a major generator of export revenue, adding more than £30 billion a year. That is greater than the car industry and greater than the defence industry, but it is being singled out for yet more taxes. Why? How often do we have to say that we cannot generate economic growth by whacking up taxes, and we cannot create jobs by making it more expensive to employ people? That is why we are seeing unemployment. Before I go on to further details and probably more negative comments, I want to take the opportunity, as many colleagues have, to praise the sector. Our tourism industry is a British success story, and we are very proud of it. Everyone who has contributed has spoken proudly about the amazing things in their constituencies that attract people domestically and from around the world. It is not just the overt tourism things, but our beautiful landscape, incredible heritage, specific tourist offerings and beautiful beaches. We have a lot to offer the world, so we should be proud of this sector, but that raises the question of why it is being hit so hard. It is a major employer in every one of our constituencies. This is already a highly taxed sector. Those are not just my words; the former Tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that a few months ago. He also said the Government had no intention of bringing in a tourism tax, but a few weeks later the Government are doing just that. It has been pointed out that this was not a manifesto commitment, just as the national insurance increases were not. The credibility of this policy is therefore already in question, especially when it comes on top of those national insurance increases and the changes to the thresholds, as well as business rates changes that have undermined the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, and significant above-inflation increases in the minimum wage. We support and have supported increases in the minimum wage, but the increase so far above inflation for younger people has had a disproportionately negative impact on their employment prospects. The tourism sector is primarily an avenue for young people, so we have had increased unemployment and huge amounts of missed opportunity for people to have what could have been their first job in an amazing sector. It has been said frequently today that this is not just a tourism tax, but a tax on overnight stays—I agree with my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who made that point a few moments ago. It is an overnight accommodation tax, and it is therefore unclear who exactly would be within the remit. Yes, obviously hotels and hostels, but is it caravans, tents and B&Bs? Will the private rented sector and other sectors be included? Who would be included? Would there be exceptions for groups such as Guides and others, who rely heavily on and get great joy out of overnight stays? As has been said, even if it is proposed at an early stage that the level should be £2 per person per night, that is an additional £56 on a family holiday for four over a seven-day period. That might not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but in the shoulder seasons in a caravan park, for example, it could add a quarter or more to the cost of a holiday. That would make the decision about whether to go very real, and could do immense damage to the shoulder season. One of the most important things we need to do, particularly for our coastal resorts, is extend the shoulder season to increase the sector’s productivity. I am sure the Minister will comment about how this tax fits into the overall finances of local government and could help local authorities, but there are many practical concerns about how it could be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire asked whether we could get a guarantee that the money would be ringfenced. There is a suspicion that the tourism industry would be subsidising and paying towards broader local government finance. Would the tourism tax end up paying for adult and children’s social care? Unless the Minister can guarantee that that will not be the case, that will always be the suspicion. Tourism taxes are often brought in around the world and then spent on additional tourism and marketing, tourist centres or supporting local tourism offerings. If there is a suspicion that this tourism tax will be spent on other things, it will be doomed to fail from the beginning. The history of all these taxes also shows that, although they may be brought in at a very low level, they always go in just one direction: up and up. So the £56 a week I mentioned could quickly become a much bigger amount. Is the Minister therefore considering putting a cap in the legislation on the maximum amount that could be achieved? Other hon. Members have mentioned that sometimes when these taxes are brought in, there is the quid pro quo of a lower VAT rate; very rarely is there both a high VAT rate and a tourism tax. There are other points to consider. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the point about the challenges if one area raises a tax and another does not, and he has experience of that on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What if Cornwall brought in a tax but Devon did not? Businesses right on the border would face stark issues because of perfectly reasonable decisions made by holidaymakers. That would be through no fault of their own, but because of a decision made by local government. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke of the peculiarities of local government in London, where we have the boroughs and the mayor, and that point has been raised by Conservative councillors as well. She made the reasonable argument that if the tax is brought in, it maybe needs to be split; otherwise, all the benefit goes to one and some of the costs go to others. The hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) raised the fear that if this tax is brought in, there could be 33,000 or more job losses in a sector that is already suffering—I mentioned the over 100,000 jobs that have already been lost in hospitality and leisure. There are real concerns here. I have further questions for the Minister. The key one is about ringfencing: can we please make sure that we can include in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—if it comes in—that the money will be ringfenced for tourism? Has an assessment been made of the impact of this tax? Can the Minister confirm whether she has had discussions about VisitBritain and VisitEngland spending, which has also been cut? That is the argument I am making: why are the Government constantly attacking this sector, reducing its funding and increasing taxes on it, when it used to be a great success story? Could the Minister confirm whether she will support Conservative party proposals for 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure? There is an alternative to constant increases in taxes. Whatever the problems may be with local government finances—and there are challenges—we all recognise that they should not and cannot be resolved off the back of an already struggling tourism industry. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. But if it is coming in, can the Minister assure us that the money raised from tourism will absolutely, 100% be spent on tourism?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular. The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week. The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills. Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all. Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike. In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church. That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power. To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued. Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000. Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who? We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State will be aware of concerns across the culture, media and sport sectors about the 14-day cooling-off period in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. It could be exploited to allow people to sign up for an annual membership of a heritage, arts or cultural institution, visit the sites for free for two weeks, then cancel their membership and get a refund, causing considerable financial distress—on top of the recent national insurance increases, of course. There is cross-party support to close that loophole, so can the Secretary of State confirm the timeline for further action?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that response and I appreciate the tone that she has adopted. We all know, especially after yesterday’s announcement, that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the game with Aston Villa was not only wrong, but based on fabricated police intelligence. From the answers to my recent written parliamentary questions, we also know that the possibility of banning Israeli fans was communicated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 9 October and to the Home Office on 2 October—two weeks before the ban was publicly announced. In that two-week period, what conversations took place between DCMS, the Home Office, the police, the safety advisory group and others, given that a hugely controversial decision was potentially about to be made? What action was taken to try to stop it?

• 6 Jan 2026 · BBC Charter Renewal · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate about a topic that he is extremely knowledgeable about. I thank the Minister for being here today; although this important topic is not currently part of her brief, she is also very knowledgeable about it. The future of the BBC is an important matter for its employees, licence fee payers and people who consume its output in this country and around the world, including many—although a declining number—of our constituents. The BBC is a cherished institution, and it is the UK’s most widely used news outlet: 94% of UK adults use BBC services every month on average. It has informed, educated and entertained generations of Brits. It is one of our most admired and respected institutions, and one of our biggest global brands. However, the BBC faces considerable challenges in the digital age, and an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Recently, it has faced other challenges to its reputation—some, admittedly, of its own making. Before Christmas, the Government released their long-awaited Green Paper as part of the process to review the royal charter. Sadly, they did so in a written ministerial statement rather than on the Floor of the House, so today is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter properly. The BBC’s existence and the licence fee arrangements are contingent on the BBC fulfilling its licence obligations—including those on impartiality, as outlined in the charter. Recently, there have been too many examples where the BBC has not been following its own editorial guidelines on impartiality—from push notifications to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict to trans issues, as well as the high-profile doctoring of a speech by the President of the United States, which has led to a multibillion dollar lawsuit. That lawsuit threatens the future financial stability of the BBC and could lead to resources being diverted away from important and much-loved programming, such as children’s TV, natural history series, sport and national events coverage, music and local radio. Many of those things have been mentioned today; they are what that the BBC does so well, and they help justify the licence fee and sustain the BBC’s brand and reputation around the world. Abiding by impartiality is an important aspect of the current debate because, as the BBC’s own editorial guidelines clearly state, “Audiences expect the BBC's news and current affairs and factual journalism output to meet the highest levels of impartiality and accuracy.” I could not agree more, which is why the accusations of failure to uphold impartiality are so serious. There is also another important aspect of the debate around impartiality. The editorial guidelines make it clear that “There is no requirement to give all views equal weight…Minority views or those less supported by evidence, do not need to be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support, to the prevailing consensus, or to those better evidenced.” That begs these questions: why can the BBC not bring itself to call Hamas a terrorist organisation? Why did it feel obliged to reprimand a journalist for saying “women” instead of “pregnant people” live on air? Impartiality should not be used as an excuse to push minority or woke views that are not supported by the majority of the British population. Common sense must prevail. This whole area clearly needs a lot of tidying up, and the charter review offers an opportunity to do so. Does the Minister agree that the governance structures, processes and procedures around compliance with, and enforcement of, impartiality and editorial guidelines must be a key focus in the charter review process? Does she agree that the BBC should not wait, and that it can, of its own volition, take action now to change its procedures and overall culture on compliance in advance of the conclusion of the charter review process? The Green Paper rightly focuses on the issues of trust—mentioned many times today—public good, driving economic growth and funding. As has been pointed out by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and others, not every option has been considered. It is right that we should take a thorough review of all future funding options for the BBC, because all options, including the status quo, will have a knock-on impact on other public service broadcasters, and on the production and broadcasting ecosystem across the UK as a whole, including radio as well as TV. The licence fee model, in its current form, is clearly not sustainable, partly because people are walking away from the BBC already and taking their money with them—a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. Since 2019, more than 2 million households have stopped paying the licence fee, and in the past decade licence fee evasion has doubled. At the same time, the BBC has fallen behind innovative rivals when it comes to young people. Additional sources of funding for the BBC must be found, without jeopardising the rest of the UK broadcasting landscape and without distorting the rest of the UK advertising market. Does the Minister agree that the charter renewal discussion also needs to focus on how the BBC can further exploit commercial opportunities, particularly with its back catalogue and revenue from overseas? Does the Minister agree that we must also debate the other side of the equation: the size, scale and scope of the BBC, or what exactly its public service content duties should be? That point seems to be missing from the Green Paper, but it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. The consultation also suggests that consideration be given to reduced or free licence fees for people on benefits. That does concern us. It would be outrageous if people claiming benefits were given free TV licences while hard-working people footed the bill. Turning briefly to comments made by other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon expressed his thanks to the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, and I also put on record my thanks for his service. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport expressed concerns that some funding options had already been ruled out; again, that is a matter of concern, and I hope the Minister can address that in a moment. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) pointed out the concerning reality that licence fee penalties often disproportionately impact women. The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out the very important role of the World Service, which is of course partly funded by the FCDO and not entirely by the licence fee. The hon. Member for Salford also highlighted the transformational impact of the BBC’s significant investment in Salford—something I had the pleasure of seeing in December. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) highlighted the important role of the national broadcaster in the age of misinformation, and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted accountability. Of course, something that we have not talked about much today, but which I am sure will be a matter of considerable debate going forward, is the role of the regulator, Ofcom. In conclusion, we want the BBC to succeed. To do so, it must be the best version of itself. That may be perhaps quite a significantly different version from what exists today. We look forward to working constructively with the BBC, the Government and all stakeholders in this charter review process. I encourage all interested parties, including our constituents, to get involved in the consultation process. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there are more opportunities in the future to debate this vital topic—the future of the BBC —in Government time, on the Floor of the House, and not just via written statements?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my right hon. Friend is correct. Of course, it is not just the tax policies, but the wraparound—the devil in the detail of what can and cannot be included in various exemptions—that causes some perhaps unintended or indeed intended consequences. I think we all care very much about the future of our high streets, which is exactly why, at conference, we announced the retail, hospitality and leisure relief. As I have said, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. The Government were doing no such thing; they were increasing business rates considerably. While hospitality is the UK’s largest employer of 16 to 24-year-olds, these cost pressures directly threaten in particular youth employment. New analysis from UKHospitality reveals that small hospitality venues alone will see business rates rise by £318 million over three years, and subsectors—such as pubs, which are often mentioned in this debate—will see a whopping increase. The average pub’s business rates, even with the reduced multiplier and transitional relief, will increase by 15% next year, which is an extra £1,400. In 2027-28, an average pub’s rates will be £4,500 higher, and in 2028-29, £7,000 higher. In total over three years, the average pub will pay an extra £12,900. An average hotel will be paying an extra £28,900 in rates next year. In 2027-28, it will be £65,000 higher, and in 2028-29, £111,000 higher. In total over three years, an average hotel’s rates bill will increase by over £200,000—just in time, no doubt, for it also to face the dreaded new tourism tax. Labour’s unemployment Bill will do nothing but impose thousands of pounds in extra costs on businesses across the country—not to mention the ricochet impact on temporary and seasonal jobs.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  The tourism tax is an appalling tax, which we have said will do immense damage to an already overtaxed industry. As my hon. Friend will be aware, a consultation is going on, and we all need to encourage our constituents, particularly those working in these sectors, to participate in that consultation to ensure that Labour does not do the damage we fear it may do to an already hit sector. Of course, many sectors of the economy rely on seasonal employment during peak times, whether that is food production sectors during peak picking and growing seasons, retailers in the run-up to Christmas, or the hospitality and tourism industry over peak summer season and during school holidays. However, if the Minister and Labour MPs had actually been engaging with and listening to businesses in their constituencies or across the country since they came to power, they would know the frustration that so many of those businesses feel. They want to employ more people, especially young people, and to give learning and skills development opportunities—perhaps providing people with their first job—but they have been unable to do so because Labour’s policies are making it unaffordable for them to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) pointed out how bizarre is it that the Government announced plans over the weekend—note, Madam Deputy Speaker, over the weekend, not to this House—to help young people with skills building opportunities in hospitality, care and construction through taxpayer-funded Government schemes. Those are the very industries that the Government are undermining with their own tax policies. If the Government did not attack these industries, businesses would be generating such opportunities and jobs of their own volition, not needing Government handouts. Rather than spend £820 million using public money to help create jobs that may not be sustainable, surely it would have made more sense not to have taxed the hospitality, construction or care sectors in the first place. Even hospices were not exempt from the national insurance increases.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I think my hon. Friend knows my answer to that. It is ironic—it would be laughable if it was not so sad—that the Government announced over the weekend that they will introduce subsidies to create jobs, because if they did a better job at running the economy, jobs would be created anyway. I will come back to this issue in a moment. On the record of the last Government, we took millions of people out of paying income tax. We increased the tax-free allowance from £6,475, which we inherited under Labour, to £12,570. As soon as we were in a position, following the pandemic, to start reducing taxes, that is exactly what we did. We reduced national insurance on workers from 12% to 10%, and then from 10% to 8%, with a plan to eliminate employee national insurance altogether and, of course, align the thresholds. Labour talked about backing business when in opposition, but they are doing no such thing in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor had the brass neck to say that she was helping the hospitality industry with business rates. In reality, hotels, pubs, theme parks, restaurants, cafés are all seeing an increase in their business rates, as are the wider retail and leisure sectors. Investment in hospitality and tourism is already being paused or diverted overseas due to the UK’s rising costs and regulatory environment.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I suggest that the hon. Lady talk to those constituents again. I do not think one has to be a sparkling economist to work out that when something has gone up, it is higher, not lower. Those people are not getting a permanent reduction in business rates. The numbers are going up. That is basic economics and facts. It is part-time seasonal and temporary workers, young workers and people in sectors such as food production, tourism, retail and hospitality who are being hit particularly hard, but perhaps that should not surprise us. As many Members have already pointed out, Labour just does not understand economics, business, or incentives.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House regrets Government policies that are making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult; notes that these policies particularly impact young people who are likely to start their first job in the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors, and specifically regrets Government policy to increase business rates on the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors; further regrets the Employment Rights Bill, with its provisions on guaranteed hours, and late notice cancellation of shifts, which will effectively destroy seasonal, flexible and part-time work; also regrets raising the rate of employer National Insurance contributions; regrets that 84,000 jobs in the hospitality sector have therefore been lost; and calls on the Government to cut public expenditure in order to abolish business rates for thousands of high street businesses, and not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill so that it is easier for young people to get their first job, and easier for people to move from receiving welfare into work. Last year’s Budget, with its increases in national insurance contributions, increases in business rates and inflation-busting pay rises, led to more than 180,000 job losses, because it increased the cost of labour. Most economists, and indeed most sensible people, understand that when you increase the price of something, there is less demand for it. By increasing the cost of jobs, Labour caused unemployment—yet this year, fully aware of rising unemployment, the Chancellor remarkably came back for more. Along with her colleagues in the Cabinet, she is imposing even more costs on business through the unemployment Bill, with more regulations and a whole new set of taxes, like the tourism tax. These decisions will do even more damage, snatching the opportunity of a first job, a seasonal job or an entire career from young people—and, indeed, people of all ages.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I won’t. I will give way in a moment to somebody behind me, but I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am on the final stretch. I can only assume the Labour Government just do not understand the negative impact their tax policies are having on tourism, hospitality and leisure, because to do such harm willingly is pure economic vandalism. The Government’s lack of understanding of the private sector and how jobs are created beggars belief. None of this would be necessary with a competent, pro-business Government. There is an alternative: a pro-business Conservative alternative that backs business, that wants the private sector to succeed, that backs entrepreneurs and wealth creators, and has policies that enable job creation and economic growth through policies such as 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. Instead, the Government have decided on an economic strategy that punishes enterprise, burdens the taxpayer, disincentivises work, increases dependency on welfare and grows the size of the public sector. That is the wrong strategy. The Labour Government are destroying the economy. They promised change at the last election. Well, we certainly got it: slower growth, higher taxes, higher spending, more debt, more welfare and higher unemployment. Time and again, Labour has betrayed the trust of the British public and we on the Conservative Benches will not tire of holding this disastrous Labour Government to account for their utter incompetence. The country cannot afford three more years of this. Britain deserves better.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland? At Department for Culture, Media and Sport oral questions in September, the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that the Government have “no plans” to bring in a tourism tax and admitted that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”, yet this week the Government announced that they are bringing in a tourism tax. When did they start planning for this tax? Was any form of impact assessment carried out before they decided that whacking up taxes on a sector that has already lost 90,000 jobs because of increases in last year’s Budget is such a great idea?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid I disagree. For a second time, DCMS sectors are left reeling following a Labour Budget that failed to deliver meaningful support on business rates for hospitality and leisure. The Government introduced a new tax on tourism and whacked up taxes on the gambling industry. Instead of being supported, DCMS sectors just got hammered. Who is to blame for this disastrous Budget for DCMS sectors? Is it DCMS Ministers for failing to make the case, or the Treasury for not listening?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Energy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today we had an urgent question on the process for appointing the Independent Football Regulator. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was unable to give crystal clear answers about the involvement of the Prime Minister in that process. This evening we learned from No. 10 that the Prime Minister did sign off on the appointment of David Kogan, who donated to the Prime Minister’s campaign—an involvement that the Prime Minister’s ethics adviser has called regrettable. Can you advise if the Prime Minister will make a statement? What alternative mechanisms are there for him to inform the House and update the record?

• 11 Nov 2025 · BBC Leadership · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top. I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad. But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster. I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too? Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines? The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa.