Nigel Huddleston MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 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

  Yet more common sense is coming from those on this side of the Chamber, and I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is young people in particular who do not have confidence in this Government and are fleeing. It is clear that I do not have particularly high regard for Labour’s economic competence, but even I did not expect the Government to be running out of money quite so quickly. I expected them to be bad, but I did not expect them to be this bad. It does not give me any political joy to say that, because my constituents and their constituents are paying the price for Labour’s incompetence through higher taxes and, in many cases, with their jobs and livelihoods. I genuinely wish that they were better at government, but that is wishful thinking, because here is another hard truth about Labour: despite the party’s name and the false advocacy for working people, every Labour Government since the second world war have left office with unemployment higher than when they started, leaving the Conservatives to clear up their mess. We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people, and to lift people out of poverty, is to help them get a job, and we have a far better record than Labour in doing that. Between 2010 and 2024, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs by the tune of hundreds per day.

• 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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  Before I start, may I refer hon. Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I have also taken hospitality below the declarable amount from UKHospitality and the BBPA—I am sure I am not the only one. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions from across the UK. We have heard some enthusiastic and supportive comments on the industry, but it is a pity that the policies are not so supportive. From the start I was left wondering what planet some of those on the Government Benches are on. They are clearly not talking to the same hard-working and angry people working in the hospitality sector as those on the Opposition Benches are. If they had been, I do not believe for one minute they would have been so enthusiastically supportive of decisions and policies that are doing such immense damage to an industry that supports 3.5 million jobs in the UK. Hospitality is one of the most important economic sectors and is our third biggest employer. It was a British success story. While we were in power between 2010 and 2024, we oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs—that is 800 jobs a day—and nearly 20% of all those new jobs created were in the hospitality sector. However, since Labour’s disastrous Budget, nearly half of all jobs lost have been in hospitality. Where Conservatives create, Labour destroys. The irony of this Government is that they say they are prioritising growth, yet they are implementing policies that do the opposite. The job losses in hospitality are a direct result of the unexpected and unnecessary employer national insurance increases that have added £1 billion to the cost of hiring people in this sector. The Government also whacked up business rates on hospitality, costing the sector a further half a billion pounds. As a result of Labour’s decisions, a generation of young people will miss out on their first job opportunity in hospitality—a sector that is particularly enthusiastic about employing young people. Of the 164,000 job losses in the UK since last year’s Budget, almost 89,000 have been lost in hospitality, and more are expected. According to UKHospitality, 79% of hospitality businesses have had to raise prices, and more than half have cut staff. That is before the Deputy Prime Minister’s further attacks on business with her unemployment Bill, burdening UK businesses with more rules and regulations and costing businesses another £5 billion, according to the Government’s own estimates. As I said last year, the Chancellor’s Budget will go down in history as the most anti-business Budget that this country has ever had. Her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs. We will see how much further she goes in this year’s Budget. This Government are well on the way to securing the unenviable record of every Labour Government since the second world war of leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started. It is the private sector, business and especially the hospitality sector that are paying the price for Labour’s mistakes and poor judgment.