Future of Terrestrial Television

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for securing this important debate and for the hard work that he has already put into this area.

I am very pleased that broadband coverage in my Isle of Wight West constituency is improving—it was at 94.2% in 2022 and is projected to reach 99.4% by 2040—thanks to our very own fibre company, WightFibre. However, actual take-up tells a different story, and it is one that we cannot ignore. Only 63.5% of households were using high-speed broadband in 2022, and even by 2040 only 76.1% of households are expected to be using it. That means that in 15 years’ time, nearly a quarter of households still might not be online. For such households, terrestrial TV is not a back-up; it is their primary connection to news, entertainment and public service content—and not just reruns of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”. That is especially true for older residents, those in rural areas and families facing financial pressures.

As hon. Members have already said today, terrestrial TV is free, reliable and accessible. It does not require expensive subscriptions or high-speed internet. It just works. At a time when loneliness and isolation are growing, it plays a vital role in promoting wellbeing, inclusion and a sense of community. Three quarters of people say that terrestrial TV has helped to reduce loneliness, and among those aged 65 and over the figure rises to 87%. Additionally, I worry that any decision to switch off terrestrial TV could further exacerbate the cost of living crisis and deepen existing inequalities in our communities.

I know that not everyone on the Isle of Wight has the means to afford high-speed internet or multiple streaming subscriptions. For many households, especially those on fixed incomes or struggling with rising bills, terrestrial TV is not just a preference; it is a necessity. Asking such families to transition to online-only services could mean they face additional costs of hundreds of pounds a year, not only for subscriptions but for upgraded devices and internet packages. That is a burden that many of those families simply cannot bear, and it is imperative that we do not impose it on them.

It is also important to realise that any imposed switch-off would not have a limited impact; it would be deeply felt across our communities. The reality is that some people would be left behind, and many people would feel a greater sense of entirely avoidable social isolation.

This shift is not just a technical one, but a social one. If we move too quickly or without providing proper support, we risk entrenching inequality, whereby access to media and public service content becomes a privilege available only to those who can afford it. Terrestrial TV helps to level the playing field. It ensures that everyone, regardless of their income or their location, can stay connected to other people around the world—and that is worth protecting.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before I call Sir John Whittingdale, let me say that I do not intend to impose a time limit, but if you keep to about four minutes, we will get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) for the opportunity to speak today about a matter of growing concern: the potential future switch-off of digital television broadcasting and what it means for millions of our citizens.

In an era of rapid change, it is easy to focus on innovation and overlook the basic systems that still serve as lifelines for many. Traditional scheduled TV is one of those systems. It is not flashy or new, but for a significant portion of our population it is essential. Digital broadcasting represents a lifeline of connectivity and inclusion, particularly for older and poorer individuals. These are often the people who do not have access to the latest smart devices or high-speed internet, or who may not feel comfortable navigating streaming platforms, apps or digital menus.

For many older people, especially those living alone, the television is not just entertainment; it is a companion. It is a reliable, familiar voice in the room, a source of news, information and even reassurance. It gives them access to the world outside their four walls, and that connection is something we should never take for granted. Data from the regulator predicts that up to 5% of the population may still be reliant on linear digital television into the 2030s, and I am certain that those people are likely to be the oldest and poorest in their communities. They may not be well represented in debates about media policy or digital inclusion, but they are in the millions, and they matter.

Many of those people live on limited incomes and cannot afford the devices, subscriptions and connectivity required for digital-only media. If we allow linear broadcasting to be switched off entirely in the 2030s, we risk creating a digital divide. We risk isolating those already most vulnerable to loneliness. We risk cutting people off from national news, emergency broadcasts, cultural programming and the simple companionship of shared live viewing experiences.

I understand the pressures from mobile operators to release parts of the digital spectrum that are currently reserved for TV broadcasting. To them, I say that digital transformation should never come at the cost of social inclusion. We must ensure that progress is inclusive, that innovation serves everyone and that we do not leave behind those who built the very society we now take for granted.

We must also consider the potential cost to consumers of such a switch-off. Many households will already be keenly aware of how the costs of multiple online streaming subscriptions can mount up. Our technology must change with the times, but we must ensure that no household is left behind in this process, and that changes to these vital services do not lead to a fragmented system of individual subscriptions to access each and every national broadcaster.

I call on the Government and broadcasters to resist pressure from mobile operators and the cost savings that an early switch-off might provide to broadcasters. For the time being, we must maintain linear digital broadcasting to ensure that nobody is left behind in the technological revolution we are all living through.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there is a guideline of four minutes for speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)]

I entirely agree that we must do all we can to protect digital terrestrial television for as long as it is needed. As a former radio presenter, I would argue that free radio could do with the same future protection. Colleagues have rightly made the case for the broadcasting medium; I want to make the case for the retailers, the engineers and the aerial installers—the people who deliver, set up and explain.

My family has been in that line of work for nearly a century. My brother Michael runs Radio Music Store in Bannockburn, helped by Pam and Logan. He took over from our father, who retired last year. My father took over from his father in the ’70s, and my grandfather started the business in 1932, five years after the first BBC radio broadcasts came to Scotland. The store rented out its first television set in time for the very first TV broadcast in Scotland in March 1952. It was 7.30 pm, and people crowded around small, low-resolution screens to watch pictures of this place—the Houses of Parliament—and the River Thames, which were the first things to be seen. Only 2,730 television licences had been issued in Scotland at the time.

By the 1980s, when I was a teenager helping out in the school holidays, televisions were everywhere. Rental remained popular because sets were costly and the analogue technology was forever blowing valves, tubes and circuits. But every town had engineers who could repair them. Most shops had backrooms that looked like laboratories, with people soldering components and bringing sets back to life. It was a skilled trade, common across the United Kingdom. Most of the businesses were small, family-run shops. Many were part of the Radio, Electrical and Television Retailers Association. Some were larger chains, but most were independents, rooted in their communities. Those communities were stronger for their presence.

Today it is a different picture. Fewer retailers cover larger areas. Many are part of Euronics, a co-operative of independent retailers, my brother’s store among them. They are still embedded in their towns, but fewer in number and serving much larger areas. It is one thing to support the continued broadcasting of terrestrial signals, but what use is that if people cannot get hold of a television? What use is that if nobody is available to realign their aerial after a winter storm? What use is that if manufacturers insist a new set cannot be set up without connecting it to the internet first?

My grandfather would have been horrified at how easily televisions worth hundreds of pounds are written off for want of a 50p fuse. Once upon a time, engineers repaired components. Now entire circuit boards are thrown away, as often are the televisions that they are in. Right-to-repair legislation has gone some way to address this, but where once we had a network of engineers in most towns making a living, now we have a handful of larger companies in urban areas and a patchwork of volunteer-run repair cafes. This is not just about nostalgia for a golden age of repair shops. It is about resilience. It is about making sure that older people, rural households and those without reliable broadband are not left behind. It is about ensuring that communities from Bannockburn to Bolton have someone nearby who can get them connected again when their set goes dark.

Yes, let us protect terrestrial television broadcasting. But let us also support the ecosystem that makes it receivable: the shops, the engineers, the local support and the skills. Let us recognise that broadcasting also means receiving, and there are a lot of people needed to ensure that reception continues. Finally, a plea: shop local when you can because, like so much of the high street, you will miss it most when you need it and it is not there.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Before we come to the Front Bench contributions, we are due to finish at 4.30 pm. While there has not been a Division called yet, there is the potential of up to three votes in the main Chamber. If that happens, I will have to suspend for the duration of those three votes. I point that out to the Front Bench spokespersons before they start their wind-up speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate on the future of terrestrial television. It is really welcome.

I will start by highlighting the important role that television still plays in our society. It is one of the most powerful and accessible ways to inform, entertain and bring people together across the UK. Whether they are global moments like the world cup and the Olympics, or the King’s speech on Christmas day—or indeed, as has been mentioned, “Gavin and Stacey” on Christmas day—or one of my favourite programmes, “Only Fools and Horses”, mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), these moments bring us together. They create shared cultural experiences. Television has the power to unite across generations, communities and nations.

I will of course address some of the points and questions put to me, but first I shall discuss some of the broad issues, and the action that the Government are currently taking. Public service broadcasters, commercial networks and independent producers all contribute to a rich, dynamic television ecosystem that is a huge source of national pride. Audiences can access world-class content that reflects our diverse society and upholds our democratic values. The system also underpins a thriving creative economy, generating thousands of jobs and driving innovation nationwide. It helps tell the story of the four corners of our United Kingdom, to ourselves and the world.

But the way we watch TV is changing rapidly. Over the past decade, we have seen significant shifts in how content is delivered and consumed. Increasing numbers of viewers are moving to internet-based platforms, both for on demand content and, increasingly, for live programming. That shift is being driven by viewers themselves. Ofcom data shows that over two thirds of UK households now use subscription video on demand services, which is a huge leap from just one in seven in 2014. However we access television in the future, it is clear that TV over the internet is increasingly playing a central role. As such developments gather pace, we must not lose sight of those who still rely on digital terrestrial television as their main way of watching TV. That is especially true for people without access to fast, reliable broadband, as has been discussed in this debate. That is why the DCMS is leading a major project on the future of TV distribution. As technology and viewing habits evolve, that project enables us to take clear evidence-based action with a strong commitment to universal TV access. I will outline the work of the forum in a moment.

Support for public service broadcasters is important as part of a diverse mix alongside commercial broadcasters and streamers. They must be able to innovate and thrive in a changing market. I heard that at first hand when I visited STV in Glasgow last week. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that ITV will turn 70 next week. I congratulate it on that anniversary. As media Minister, I have been pleased to work with and visit our PSBs including, of course, the BBC, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5.

Equally, infrastructure providers require certainty to make the long-term investments needed for digital terrestrial and internet TV. I heard that at first hand when I visited the Emley Moor mast with Arqiva a few years ago. It is a Yorkshire landmark just up the road from my Barnsley constituency.

As has been mentioned, DTT is guaranteed until at least 2034. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the challenges for public service broadcasters and, importantly, the impact on loyal daily viewers, especially those who rely on digital terrestrial services. Broadcasters want to focus their spending on content that truly reaches audiences. However, as digital terrestrial TV audiences fall, the cost per viewer rises, making it harder for channels, big or small, to sustain distribution.

I would like to directly address the issue put to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others of why the Government do not simply commit to extending the licences past 2034. The cost of DTT to the PSBs is substantial. As fewer people rely on DTT, the cost per house is going up and will continue to do so. I am aware from my visits and meetings with providers that as part of the network reaches the end of life, investment would be needed to carry on even the current services. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), a former media Minister, referred to that tipping point. I say that while very clearly saying that no decisions have been made; these are complex issues.

We must ensure that the system remains viable so that audiences can continue to access a diverse and vibrant range of channels. Ofcom’s recent review of public service media made it clear: this is not just about how we watch TV; it is about the future of the UK’s cultural identity, creative economy and democratic life. That is why early strategic planning is essential and why DCMS has made that a priority. Of course, we need to bring that decision together with the BBC charter, ensuring that the BBC continues to provide universal services in a way that is sustainable for the long term.

TV distribution is a complex challenge with no easy answers. We are carefully assessing the costs and trade-offs of different distribution methods to make an informed, sustainable decision, ensuring that key stakeholders and robust evidence are involved in every step of the process. We also recognise that any decision on the future of TV distribution should encourage a competitive TV sector for public sector broadcasters and commercial channels and that the distribution method should, within reason, allow for any channel to be shown. There should not be an industry gatekeeper.

The Media Act 2024, which I and the right hon. Member for Maldon spent many hours in Committee discussing, was a major step forward. It ensures that public service broadcasters get the visibility they deserve on platforms via the internet, making it easier for audiences to find trusted, high-quality content in a crowded digital world.

I acknowledge the concerns about what a shift to internet-based TV might mean for audiences. I heard the issues and concerns that Members raised today. We know that there are groups of people who are more likely to be digitally excluded. They are often older, living in rural areas, more likely to be on lower incomes or living alone, or they may have a disability. Those are the people who rely most on television, not just for news and entertainment, but for connection and companionship.

Around 4.5 million households still face real barriers to accessing TV over the internet, whether due to a lack of broadband, unconnected TVs, or a preference for traditional linear viewing. To understand those challenges, we commissioned researchers who spoke directly with a representative range of viewers across demographic groups, from DTT-only users to hybrid users, who use both DTT and IPTV, and full internet TV adopters. Building on the University of Exeter’s research, this in-depth work shows that many are interested in IPTV once they understand it better, but concerns remain about cost, internet reliability and technical confidence, even among those with broadband. We are using those insights to understand how different groups are affected and to explore what the Government and industry can do to support fair and inclusive access to television.

Digital inclusion remains a top priority for the Government. It is essential for unlocking long-term economic growth and is being led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The DSIT-led Project Gigabit, the Government’s programme to enable hard-to-reach communities to access lightning-fast gigabit-capable broadband, is key to ensuring fair and inclusive access for all.

I want to answer some of the other points. Ofcom noted the importance of any decision, but it has not made a recommendation. It is part of our TV forum. DCMS is doing a full assessment of the costs of all the options, informed by our work with the stakeholder forum. We will publish that assessment when a decision is made.

Experts are at the centre of our work on the future of TV distribution. Our stakeholder forum brings together Ofcom, industry and audience representatives in a co-ordinated effort to explore the future of television delivery. It provides the space to identify challenges, discuss potential solutions and make real progress in shaping policy.

Running for at least 12 months, the forum meets quarterly, having already held four sessions with a final meeting planned for November. To support it, we have established three working groups, each focusing on a core part of the landscape: the TV sector, the infrastructure that underpins it, and the audience perspective. Together, these groups ensure that we are looking at the full picture—technical, commercial and, most importantly, viewers.

Membership spans the entire TV distribution ecosystem, from major broadcasters and infrastructure providers to trade bodies, advocacy groups and sector experts from across the UK. It includes organisations that represent people most likely to be unconnected or digitally excluded, such as the Digital Poverty Alliance, the Rural Services Network, Good Things Foundation and Silver Voices. This approach is producing a rich evidence base.

The forum plays a vital role in helping DCMS to test assumptions, understand practical implementation challenges and assess the technical feasibility of different approaches. It is not expected to reach a single view, but it will help to build consensus around the viable options and the evidence behind them before the Government make any decision. I am committed to transparency in this area: we will publish papers from this forum, set out clearly the evidence we have collected, and consult further ahead of any decision. Before any possible change, Parliament would be fully engaged and involved in any legislative process.

Let me close by reaffirming the Government’s strong commitment to a future for TV that is sustainable, innovative and inclusive; a future that supports our creative economy, protects access for every viewer, and encourages our broadcasters and platforms to keep creating world-class content for audiences here and around the world.

We also know this is not an easy decision. The choices ahead are complex and must be guided by evidence, and that is why we are taking the time to get them right, drawing on data, research and the views of people across the sector and across the country. We know this work cannot happen in isolation; it is a joint effort that requires extensive collaboration across Government, industry and audience groups—one that balances expertise and lived experience, that listens as much as it leads, and that keeps our clear commitment that no one gets left behind. As we look to the future, we must ensure that our television sector remains a cornerstone of British life: accessible to everyone, rich in diversity and confident in its place on the global stage.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

We are about to vote, so I would like to put the question as soon as we can, but it is up to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell).

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.

I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.

The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

Order. Is the right hon. Member happy for me to put the Question, because a vote is about to be held?

[David Mundell]

Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.

BBC Local Radio

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will call Gregory Campbell to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the BBC’s role in promoting locally-based radio reporting.

A few years ago, a previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), gave the standard mantra that the BBC constantly uses:

“The BBC should always have the editorial and operational independence to decide how best to serve its audiences”.

I think most people would subscribe to that, which is why I describe it as a mantra. None the less, the Government have a duty to ensure that the BBC acts in the best interests of the licence fee paying public, which is why I am grateful to have been granted the debate. I am also grateful that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee alluded last week to the subject matter that I raise today, which is the downgrading of my local BBC radio station, BBC Radio Foyle, which serves Londonderry and the north-west.

It may surprise some people—hopefully not too many—that I raise this subject, as I am sometimes described as an arch-critic of the BBC. My view is that when the BBC does well, I wish to acknowledge that, and when it deserves criticism, I am more than content to offer that. I will leave others to judge on that basis whether the description of arch-critic is accurate, given the number of times I have either criticised or praised the BBC. That is a matter for another day.

I was first interviewed on BBC Radio Foyle not long after it opened in 1979, which seems like an awful long time ago. In fact, when I think about it, it is an awful long time ago. There are a number of changes that I wish to see applied to my local radio station, but its downgrading is not one of them. Last week, at the sitting of the DCMS Committee that I have alluded to, the director-general, Tim Davie, was asked about the downgrading of Radio Foyle. He responded:

“The savings plans we have announced affect many different people and teams within BBC NI…This is a painful saving, but we believe we should be investing more in digital and be doing more across the whole of Northern Ireland in terms of developing the production sector and other things.”

Many of us would make the point that local radio is often a lifeline when things are difficult locally, and the past 24 hours are a classic example. At home, we have had exceptionally bad weather—frost and snow—with roads difficult to navigate and schools closing between last night and this afternoon. That all happened in the geographic area of Londonderry, Limavady and Strabane, in the north-west of Northern Ireland, which is right in the middle of BBC Radio Foyle’s catchment area. This morning, the very programme that the BBC is seeking to axe was able to carry information live to listeners in the catchment area who would be affected by road and school closures so that they could take action, either to avoid roads that would be closed or to ensure that their children could move to another location rather than navigate difficult roads to schools that were going to be closed. All in all, the very day that we are discussing the issue is a day that shows the importance of a local radio station. Along with the downgrading of the station and the axing of the very popular breakfast-time programme, on between 7 am and 9 am, the hourly news bulletins are to go, according to Mr Davie.

There is a concern in some sections of the community that the BBC decision is part of an anti-Londonderry bias. I want to make it clear that that is not a view I share. If it was BBC radio in Enniskillen, Portadown, Newry, Newtownards or Ballyclare, my view is that the BBC may well have come to the exact same decision. I believe it is a cost-driven decision, not a bias against a geographic location of Northern Ireland. If it had happened in their area, I would expect local representatives to do exactly what I am doing now and stand up for a local radio station in their community.

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend has particular experience as a former manager of BBC Radio Solent and a Select Committee member. As I have said previously, I am very grateful to the Select Committee for looking at some of these quite complex issues around local journalism. The question is: at what point does local journalism cease to be local if there is a merging between large geographical counties such as Devon and Cornwall. That causes me concern, and I would be happy to engage with him further on all of those issues.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Many of my constituents listen to Radio Merseyside, which is an excellent local radio station and probably one of the most popular in the country. It certainly has a good track record in dealing with local issues and in holding its politicians and others to account. I have to say to the Minister that we talk about local radio, but it is ceasing to be local because of what we have heard today. The next thing will be whether some of the local radio stations get closed—perhaps in a year or two’s time. That is where we are going. Should the BBC not be concentrating on investing more and on improving further the local content of radio stations? The Minister said that she was not happy with the way that this had been done. When was her Department told by the BBC that it was making these changes?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the importance of Merseyside radio. On the matter of holding people to account, my understanding is that the proposals include an investment in investigative journalism, which could be a positive thing, but if we had been given further details, information and notice, I would have had a better understanding of the proposals. We were not given notice beyond the news release yesterday.

Women’s Football

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they are expected to wear a face covering when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the estate. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the experience of women playing football in England.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members in attendance. I can see that there is some incredible expertise on the subject in the Chamber, and I look forward to hearing others’ contributions. I am glad to have secured the debate, which has come at an important time for women’s football, not least because of the situation that Coventry United women players faced just before Christmas. The players and staff found out two days before Christmas that the club was in financial trouble and their contracts were to be terminated, only to be saved at the eleventh hour on 4 January by a new buyer for the club.

Women’s football has seen incredible growth in the last few years. That is down to increased opportunity and, importantly, visibility. The Football Association, under the leadership of Baroness Sue Campbell and Kelly Simmons, has done a great job in getting young girls and women playing football, as shown in the FA’s latest “Gameplan for Growth” report, published in 2020. Between 2017 and 2020, the FA doubled participation in grassroots football among women and girls, and doubled fans attending international and women’s super league matches. I thoroughly enjoyed, in spite of the cold, going to see the Lionesses as they played at the Stadium of Light last year in the World cup qualifiers. It is great to see them going around the country and playing to different audiences. The Lionesses will always be very welcome in Sunderland and I hope they return soon. That highlights the importance of visibility in the growth of the sport.

The BBC, for example, has done a great job in helping build the sport’s profile. It will provide live network TV and radio coverage of the women’s Euros, which take place in England this summer. It was the first to cover a whole Lionesses campaign, when it showed every game of their 2015 World cup run, and attracted 28 million people to watch the 2019 World cup campaign. Those are truly incredible numbers, showing the value of the BBC as a public service broadcaster, which I am sure the Minister recognises, while also showing that, when women’s football and women’s sport is on TV, it brings in viewers.

Do not let those stuck in the dark ages say that people are not interested in women’s sport. A report released by academics at Durham University last week exposed the levels of misogyny still present among male football supporters, with some respondents remarking how women should not participate in sport at all, or at least stick to perceived feminine sports, such as athletics, and that the media reporting of women’s sport is PC nonsense or positive discrimination.

Let me say on the record that they are wrong, and the numbers back that up. Visibility matters, and seeing women play sport on TV makes a difference. The importance of visibility cannot be overstated. Work by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that it is having an effect. Sky Sport’s new deal has already brought in almost 8 million new viewers in the early stages of the new women’s super league season. Around nine in 10 of those viewers had not watched women’s super league in the previous four seasons. The commitment that organisations, such as the BBC and now Sky, have shown to women’s football and women’s sport in general has given young girls across the country the opportunity to see good sporting role models. It is truly invaluable to see people who look like them do amazing things. It does wonders for the confidence of those just starting out on their playing journeys, no matter how far they decide to go.

I would like to ask the Minister where the Government are up to in considering adding the women’s equivalent of the men’s sports to the listed events regime. I understand that the Government are open to consultation on that. The Minister for Media wrote to me in November, saying that it takes time, but could the Minister today give me a more definitive timescale for when the consultation is likely to conclude? The case for equality is overwhelming. With the visibility of women’s sport and women’s football rocketing, there is even more reason to get the future of the sport right.

The situation at Coventry United women’s football club was so concerning, which it is why it is important to debate the issue. Coventry plays in the second tier of women’s football, turning professional only last summer, becoming the fourth fully professional team in the women’s championship. Many of the Coventry women had left good careers to achieve their dream of playing professional football. Many of them had supported the team for many years. Yet, on 23 December, two days before Christmas, the women were told that training was cancelled, and the players, who had not been paid in four weeks, were invited to a Zoom meeting at 10 am, in which they were told that their contracts were being terminated. That is a dreadful way to inform someone of that news.

One of the Coventry players, Anna Wilcox, told Radio Plus Coventry:

“It was just a feeling of emptiness, thinking that now I’ve lost the club that I played for for a long, long time…It hit a lot of players and a lot of staff so hard. I really don’t think we will be the last, unless something changes.”

There are many issues that emerge here. The first is governance. Women’s football has a range of different governance structures. Some teams are connected to men’s teams, such as in my own city of Sunderland, with some of those being rich premier league teams such as Manchester City and Arsenal. Other teams are independent of any men’s teams and operate on their own, such as Coventry United. Then there are fan-owned teams such as Lewes, who are doing extraordinary things under the leadership of Maggie Murphy. The range of governance structures means that there is an array of different financial arrangements, but the situation that arose at Coventry is one that could happen to any team at the will of their owner, especially as it is reported that Coventry were given FA money earlier than was planned, to help them through what they knew to be a difficult period. It is unclear where that money went.

The difference in the nature of ownership means that it is incredibly unhelpful to compare the situation in the women’s game with that in the men’s game. Therefore, I agree with the recommendation in the fan-led review led by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is present, that the women’s game needs its own review to look into the issues and challenges that the game faces.

The second issue I wish to highlight is the working conditions of women players. The average wage in the men’s championship is around £35,000 a week. The average wage of the Coventry women’s team when they went into liquidation in December was just £16,000 a year, which equates to £308 a week. Although there are a multitude of reasons why the pay is different—not least the 50-year ban on women playing the sport—it is obvious that women’s experience of playing football is totally different from that of men. Although I am not saying that the women’s game is at the same stage as the men’s game, it is clear that the women’s game does not receive the respect it deserves. In women’s football, contracts are often shorter and the pay is low. Therefore, it is extremely hard for players and staff alike to plan for their future.

One of the most prominent examples of the working conditions of women footballers and their experience of playing is that of Birmingham City Women. When they were in ninth place in the top tier of the football pyramid in 2021, they came together to send a formal letter to their own club to bring to light their working conditions, because their previous request to meet the board about the issue was denied. This team are connected to a men’s team, but at the point of sending the letter, only three players were understood to be under contract for the following season. In reaction to the reports, the spokesperson for the club said:

“Both men and women’s first teams are yet to secure survival in their respective leagues. This makes it hard to start contract negotiations.”

I am afraid that I disagree with the spokesperson. Not being under contract also makes it hard for women to plan their futures.

The issue of maternity rights for players impacts on their lives hugely. In research conducted by Dr Alex Culvin last year, players were quoted as saying they

“need longer contracts so we feel more secure. I shouldn’t have to think I need to sign a four-year contract because I want to have a baby, so I know they’ll pay me.”

However, I understand that a new player contract has been agreed between the FA and the Professional Footballers Association that includes maternity cover and long-term sickness cover. I understand that this is a standardised contract that would cover players playing in both the women’s super league and the championship. If that is accurate and is to be implemented, it will be a massive step forward for the status of women footballers and, more importantly, for the terms and conditions and employment rights that they experience. I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard in the game to get to this point.

That does not mean that we stop here, though. Although it is great news, there is still work to do. At the moment, only women who have played in the top tier of women’s football—the women’s super league—are eligible for PFA support. This needs to change, and the PFA needs to widen its remit to support all professional women players. Although the PFA runs workshops for male players on post-career options and life worries, it should offer the same services to women players. That issue is one of a package of issues in the women’s game that need to be looked at.

The investment put into the game by organisations such as Barclays has done so much to further the opportunities that are available, but we undoubtedly need a new formula that provides ample funding for the women’s game at the grassroots level and beyond, because the existing funding can only go so far. That is why it is so important that the Government listen to the fan-led review and bring forward an equivalent review into the women’s game.

I know that the Minister has said that we should expect a reply to the fan-led review in the spring, but a whole season—spring—is not a deadline and the women’s game is in need of review now.

While I talk about women’s football, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the incredible work done by Khalida Popal in bringing the Afghan girls team over to the United Kingdom. This debate is focused on the experience of women playing football in England and I am extremely proud that these Afghan girls are now able to come and experience exactly that. There are tremendous opportunities in this country for young girls to advance in the sport and I am so happy that these Afghan girls were able to come here and continue to play the game they love, in safety and with support. Khalida’s work has been inspirational and I am sure that all Members here today will join me in thanking her.

In conclusion, I return to the fan-led review. The Government have said, in an answer to a written parliamentary question that I submitted earlier this year, that they

“welcome the Independent Fan Led Review of Football Governance and…endorsed in principle the primary recommendation of the review, that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of our national game.”

Can the Minister endorse in principle recommendation 45 of the report, which is that a wholesale review of women’s football should be conducted? Also, can he provide a more specific timeframe for when the Government will publish their full response to the fan-led review?

I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say in this debate and to hearing the Minister’s answers to the questions put by myself and others.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

This debate will finish no later than 5.55 pm. If hon. and right hon. Members can all keep their speeches to around five minutes, everyone should get in before we call the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this important debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am the author of “Don Revie: The Biography”, about the Leeds manager. I mention that because I want to mention him today. Don Revie was a victim of cancel culture. He resigned from a job he did not like, and the FA banned him for 10 years. I have asked the FA to apologise, but it has not. What is extremely important, and why it is so pertinent to mention him in the debate, is that women were the victims of cancel culture 100 years ago.

During world war one, women’s football was incredibly popular. Like in the men’s game, many teams grew from the factory workforce, with factories setting up their own teams. Games attracted thousands of spectators, with one Boxing day match watched by more than 53,000 people. Celebrity players came to exist, such as Lily Parr. Women’s football was thriving, with female players given offers to play all around the world. On 5 December 1921, that ended. The Football Association passed a resolution banning women from playing in its stadiums. Bolstered by sexist and selective medical opinions on the unsuitability of women for the sport, the FA delivered a death blow to women’s football. In all likelihood, the reasoning behind the ban was due not to the health concerns of female players but more to the popularity of women’s football, which was drawing spectators away from the men’s game.

Although that was not an outright ban on women playing football, it took away the big stadiums and the media attention. Women could no longer play in front of big crowds, and without media coverage and the ticket sales from larger stadiums, most clubs were forced to disband. It was not until 1971 that the FA lifted the ban on women’s football, and it was not until 1993 that the FA brought all women’s football under its direct control. Let me put that in context. When England won the World cup in 1966 and, it is said, modern football began, with football fever sweeping the country, women were still banned from playing football by the Football Association.

The season before women’s football was banned in 1921, there were only two professional men’s leagues in England. Since then, men’s football has grown to the point where it attracts the eye-watering salaries for the top footballers and can support four professional divisions. Women’s football was not given the same opportunity. The women’s game was cut off at the knees by the FA in 1921, just as it had become popular and mainstream.

I believe it is the duty of the Football Association to correct that. Given that a deliberate intervention by the Football Association caused the demise of women’s football in 1921, the FA ought to deliberately intervene to build up that sport and make up for the last 100 years. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) will smile when I say this, but I have to mention Don Revie again. When I have written to the FA in the past to ask for apologies on behalf of the Revie family, it has dismissed that out of hand. That is an absolute disgrace. And I have no doubt that the FA will do the same if we try to do the same for women’s football.

Without the FA’s intervention by banning women’s football, who knows where it would be now? The FA has a debt to repay. Investing in women’s football clubs and academies, increasing media coverage of matches and encouraging spectators is not “positive discrimination”; it is something that is needed in the game now. It is necessary and should be brought about.

John Williams from the University of Leicester has said:

“The increase in media coverage of women’s sport…was openly supported by some men. But it also clearly represents, for others, a visible threat”.

That perception that the popularity of women’s football could be a threat to the men’s game is not new. It was the reason why women’s football was originally banned, 100 years ago. There are those who criticise women’s football as being less in some way—less skilful, less popular or less commercially viable. However, that is not intrinsic to the sport. In fact, women’s football in the UK was once more popular than the men’s. It was the actions of the FA that changed that.

Unfortunately, we have long heard male football fans—I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) on bringing this issue up—criticising and belittling the women’s game. In fact, an academic study by Durham University reported that openly misogynistic views of women in sport were far too common among male football fans, irrespective of age. Lead author Dr Stacey Pope said of the study:

“Our research showed that attitudes towards women in sport are, to some extent, changing, with more progressive attitudes. However, the findings are also reflective of a patriarchal society in which misogyny is rife. There were numerous examples of men from across all generations exhibiting highly sexist and misogynistic attitudes.”

Participants described media coverage of women’s sports as “positive discrimination” or “PC nonsense”. That needs to change.

The number of women and girls playing football in England hit 3.4 million in 2020. The desire to play and the desire of fans to see more women’s football are evident. We saw that in the 2015 World cup: the Lionesses’ games were extremely popular. When women’s football is given the coverage that it deserves, people will watch. We simply need to give them the choice by showing more games on mainstream channels. That will only bring more young girls into the sport and strengthen the game’s future—something that we would all welcome.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I will start calling the Front Benchers at 5.38 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second day in a row, Mr Twigg. It is good to see you here. It is a pleasure to respond for the Opposition in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing it and on her excellent opening speech, as well as all hon. Members who have spoken.

It was especially good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) speak about the power of sport to bring people together and her experience as a new member of the parliamentary football team, noting the issues around girls’ participation. It was eye-opening to hear about the experience of women fans and the anticipation of abuse or sexism relating to female officials, which is an angle that I had not really thought of before. It was very interesting.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who spoke about how women’s football taught her about communication and teamwork, which has stood her in good stead for her role in the Opposition Whips Office. I join her in thanking the unsung heroes who keep women’s football going—the volunteers. Importantly, she outlined the ordeal of Coventry United, which I will return to briefly.

As always in any debate on sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) gave us a lesson. The history of women’s football is a fascinating background to the issues in women’s football today.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), my predecessor, for everything she did when she held this role before me. I agree with almost everything she said, although I am not sure about her team being the finest team on the planet—they are trailing in second place in the premier league at the moment. I agree with just about everything she said, including on the extra effort that we need to put in to support women’s football in this country.

In many ways, these are good times for women’s football in England. The successes of the Lionesses in recent years—notably, taking third place in the 2015 World cup and then again making the semi-finals in 2019—have helped to boost the game’s profile, and growth in interest, spectators and participation have followed. The Women’s Super League has attracted record crowds, and we had 40,000 people watching the FA cup final at Wembley in December. Driven by the FA’s efforts, the participation of women and girls in grassroots football doubled between 2017 and 2020.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) referred to the increasing interest in Parliament on this issue. I would put that down partly to the general increase in interest in women’s football, but also to her work as an absolutely fantastic champion not just of women’s football, but of football in this country. I thank her for her work on the review and for her wider work on football.

As the country looks forward to hosting the Women’s Euros this summer, enthusiasm for the women’s game will grow, attracting more fans and inspiring budding footballers. I would agree that coverage on the BBC and on Sky has raised the profile of the game, with more and more people watching women’s football on TV, driving participation. I would echo the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central to the Minister about listed events, and I hope that he will respond.

In general, the future looks bright for women’s football, but as we have heard today, there are challenges. To build a future that is fair and works for players, staff and fans at all levels, some issues need to be addressed. That is a job for the FA and for leaders in football, but also for the Government.

Today’s debate was partly brought about as a response to the recent situation at Coventry United women’s team. The team narrowly avoided disaster thanks to a last-minute buyer, and I am pleased that Coventry’s players are going to be able to continue to earn a living playing the sport they love, but it should not have come to that. This was a full-time, fully professional championship club, but to the shock—complete shock—of the players and staff, they found themselves hours away from ceasing to exist.

Coventry is not the only example of the precarious nature of the existence of some women’s clubs. Just as the Women’s Super League was due to start in 2017, Notts County folded. In 2019, Yeovil Town dropped two divisions from the WSL as a result of financial problems. Leyton Orient cast aside its women’s teams last year, forcing the creation of London Seaward to ensure that the players could continue to play. Fylde women’s team was disbanded in 2020, only for the decision to be reversed some time later, and Holwell Sports Women FC in the fourth tier of the football pyramid announced that it would have to fold just at the beginning of this month. So there are challenges, and it is not just problematic governance and job insecurity that need to be fixed. There is great growth in participation, as we have heard, but there needs to be more work on encouraging people to participate and on breaking down the barriers.

In the professional game, when things go wrong women’s players are only eligible for support from the Professional Footballers Association if they have played in the top league of women’s football, leaving most women players with nowhere to turn. As we have heard, levels of pay across women’s football are generally low, with players often needing to work on other jobs alongside football to make ends meet. Many players, as we have heard, have poor access not just to pitches, but to the medical and fitness facilities needed to play safely. Employment contracts are often poor, short term and ill-suited to the specific needs of women. Generally there has been poor maternity support for women who wish to have children, although we have had encouraging news from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central about the potential change to that—so, fingers crossed.

Our women footballers deserve better. There is, of course, the issue of the abuse and harassment faced by women in the sport. Women in Football reports that almost a third of their members have experienced gender-based social media abuse, and that is one aspect of what many players have to endure. So there is progress, but more needs to be done.

We have had the excellent fan-led review of football governance, led by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, which the Government are still dragging their heels on responding to in full or implementing. That review called for a separate dedicated review of the women’s game, and that is really the key ask I have of the Minister today. We have had a number of asks, but I think the encompassing action for the Minister—I note that you want me to finish, Mr Twigg, so I will be brief—would be on that key ask. Given the complexities of women’s sport and the crises that have cropped up, a full review of the future of women’s football is urgently needed. The Government have said they would respond in full to the review in spring, but why the delay? Will the Minister clarify whether there is any truth in the rumour that the Treasury are the block on progress? The issues raised in the debate mean that a separate women’s review is needed, so why not get on with it? The Government have accepted in principle the fan-led review’s recommendation for an independent regulator. I repeat the request of other Members that the Minister should now endorse its call for a review of women’s football. That is what we need. Let us get on with it.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, but I remind him that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) will want a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Let me first pay tribute to the NHS staff, especially the nurses and doctors, and also our carers who have worked so tirelessly and sacrificed so much in the past year. They have gone above and beyond what was asked of them. They are exhausted and stressed. Some have been traumatised by their experiences. It left a real sour taste when it became clear that, despite his claims of honesty, the Chancellor had not mentioned in his Budget speech the 1% that the Government are now proposing. Effectively, it is a pay cut. I want to see a pay rise that fully recognises the hard work and sacrifices of those who served the country on the frontline in its hour of need. I also do not believe the Chancellor’s self-proclaimed honesty when it comes to the resources that the NHS will need to deal with the huge backlog of non-covid patients waiting for treatment for things such as cancer. The Government have shown their lack of foresight throughout this pandemic, so it is time that they ensure that mental health support is there for frontline NHS and care staff who have served throughout this time.

Despite Halton being ranked the 13th most deprived area, it is not in the priority 1 group for the levelling-up fund and the UK community renewal fund. It beggars belief that Halton is not a priority 1 area. The list of areas included by the Chancellor suggests that ranking is more about who has a Tory MP than real need. His claims of honesty did not stretch to how the areas were chosen. The Chancellor must correct the situation so that the priority groups are based on areas in most need.

The Runcorn town deal will be an outstanding bid, with some fantastic projects such as the Unlock Runcorn project to restore the locks and links to the Manchester ship canal and provide much-needed jobs. I hope the fact that the town of Runcorn has a Labour MP will not count against it. I asked the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in November if Runcorn would be treated less favourably than other towns because it has a Labour MP. He said that it would not be and that it would be treated fairly. I hope that he keeps to his word. This is against a background of cuts to Halton Borough Council’s budget of £52 million since 2010. Halton expects to spend £2.2 million more on tackling the covid pandemic, despite promises by the Chancellor that that would be fully funded. The Chancellor must fully fund it.

The cladding scandal in this country has had a devastating effect, not least on my constituents in the Decks flats in Runcorn. Despite repeated representations, the Government are still ignoring those buildings that are under 18 metres tall. They must put this right.

Today we celebrate International Women’s Day. Again, we heard nothing about the pensions injustice faced by women born in the 1950s. The Government appear to be completely indifferent to their financial suffering. These women must be properly compensated, and I again call on the Government to right this injustice. This Budget failed to meet the scale of the task.

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is an excellent advocate for his constituency and all its wonderful places to visit, including Legoland, which is popular with my children. I completely agree that visitors to the UK must be able to get to destinations outside London by public transport. I welcome our Government’s commitment to investment in public transport. I want to make that travel as easy as possible for tourists. I would be happy to talk further with my hon. Friend if he has any specific suggestions to help visitors get to his constituency.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Many of our northern towns have great tourist attractions, such as Norton priory in Runcorn and the Catalyst Science Discovery Centre in Widnes. What is the Minister doing to ensure there is more focus on getting tourism into our northern towns, not just concentrating on cities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Derek Twigg Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I will. In terms of using technologies to get broadband rolled out, we should use whatever technologies are best in the location and the geography that there is. Of course, North Yorkshire has very big spaces, and fixed wireless is often the best approach.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Liverpool. Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that Liverpool football club has been allocated only 16,626 tickets for the Champions League final, some of them costing up to £400? Liverpool is one of the best-supported clubs in the world. This is not really paying due respect to the fans who support the game.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)]

That is a matter for UEFA, but I share the view that we want to make sure that Liverpool fans get the opportunity to go along and celebrate being in the Champions League final.