Arts Council England: Independent Review
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Today, the right hon. Baroness Hodge of Barking DBE is publishing her independent review of Arts Council England.
The Government strongly welcome the review and would like to thank Baroness Hodge for her unwavering rigour and dedication over the past 12 months. We also thank the members of Baroness Hodge’s advisory panel, who freely gave their time to share their expertise, and all those who contributed to the review, either by submitting views via the online survey, or through meetings with Baroness Hodge and her team.
This Government are committed to ensuring arts and culture thrive everywhere. Access to arts and culture is not a luxury—it is a necessity. It shapes our communities and enriches our lives. We believe that excellence must be open to everyone, wherever they live and whatever their background. A national Arts Council, connected to the places and people it serves, is essential to making that vision a reality.
The review highlights the strengths of Arts Council England’s work, but it also challenges us to do better. It sets out recommendations to strengthen support for artists, reach communities more effectively and ensure that creativity is accessible to all. The Government will now consider these recommendations, work with Arts Council England to begin the process of ambitious change and respond to the review in the new year.
I will place a copy of the review and a copy of relevant annexes to the review in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1180]
National Youth Strategy
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
For too long, young people have not been sufficiently part of decisions that affect their current and future lives, not just at a national level but in every part of Government. We are determined to change this, building a future where young people are in the driving seat. Young people are not a problem to be solved but a powerful asset for our nation’s future.
In November last year, we announced the development of a new, ambitious direction for young people to begin that change. Today, we have published “Youth Matters: Your National Youth Strategy”, our cross-Government plan for the next decade to give young people a safe place to go, someone who cares for them and a community they feel a part of. We have two clear ambitions underpinning this plan. By 2035, we want
to have halved the participation gap in enriching activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers; and
half a million more young people to have access to a trusted adult outside of their home.
Over the past year, we have co-produced this strategy with young people from very different places and backgrounds and ran one of the biggest national conversations the Government have had with young people. We heard about the challenges that they face regarding their education, health, safety, relationships, community engagement and many more. Their insights and priorities are captured in our landmark “Youth Matters: State of the Nation” report, published alongside the strategy. We have also worked closely with our Youth Advisory Group and our Expert Advisory Group, and I thank them for all of their help in ensuring we respond to young people’s priorities and to the youth sector’s needs.
Through our strategy, we will give young people the spaces and opportunities they need to connect with their peers, with trusted adults and with their communities. It is the beginning of ambitious reforms in national and local youth policy, with three key shifts in how we will deliver for and with young people over the next decade: from national to local, from fragmented to collaborative, and from excluded to empowered.
The most devastating consequence of local cuts to youth provision over the last decade were the services that were lost, the youth clubs that were shut, and the trusted relationships that were broken and lifelines lost. So our work starts with rebuilding a strong, sustainable youth sector. We will invest £15 million over the next three years in the youth workers, volunteers and other trusted adults who listen to young people and guide them through life. We will also launch a £70 million programme over the next three years to help local areas better support young people and develop a network of up to 50 Young Futures hubs by March 2029. We have already chosen the first eight early adopter locations that will establish a hub to meet the support needs of local young people.
Building on that, we will enable young people to have access to more and better activities which support their wellbeing and their socioemotional skills. As a first step, we will be spending £350 million over the next four years through our better youth spaces programme to refurbish or build up to 250 youth facilities in areas that need one most. We will also create a new richer young lives fund with over £60 million of funding to create more high-quality fun activities and youth work opportunities in areas that need them most.
This strategy is a fully cross-Government plan which outlines our immediate and longer-term choices to help young people get good jobs, keep them safe in our streets and online, support their mental and physical health and many other priorities.
It builds on wider reforms to the education skills system with a target of two-thirds of young people participating in higher-level learning—academic, technical, or an apprenticeship—by age 25. It also builds on recent announcements, such as the publication of the child poverty strategy which will see the largest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament as well as the investment of £1.5 billion through the Youth Guarantee and the Growth and Skills Levy—creating 50,000 more apprenticeships and foundation apprenticeships for young people over the next three years.
We will engage with partners within and outside the Government to deliver our plan and we call on parents and carers, youth providers, volunteers, teachers, local authorities, health providers, police officers, employers and countless more to work with us.
This publication is just the start. For too long, young people have been an afterthought when it comes to decision making. Yet the success of the nation depends on their success. We have an opportunity to unlock the potential of a generation and this is our promise to them.
[HCWS1152]
Culture, Media and Sport
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 503.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Lisa Nandy
… In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates recently produced a report, drawing on Ofcom data, which showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
For too long in this country, there has been a divide between access and excellence when it comes to the arts. Our Government believe that everybody deserves access to excellence—everyone, everywhere. We invest around £600 million every year via Arts Council England, and earlier this year, I was delighted to announce the £270 million arts everywhere fund to support exactly that aim.
Steve Witherden
In Wales, expressive arts is a mandatory part of the curriculum, helping to develop pupils’ creative, artistic and performance skills while also improving cognitive development, attainment in maths and English, behaviour and wellbeing. Given that England has seen a 42% decline in expressive arts GCSE entries since 2010, what plans does the Minister have to restore the status of arts and creative education and support a broader, more balanced curriculum?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right to lament the decline in the number of pupils across England taking arts subjects, and this Government are determined to turn that around. That is why the Education Secretary and I have worked closely together. My hon. Friend will have seen the announcement she made about a broader, richer curriculum for all pupils, alongside the work I am doing to rebuild a broader, richer set of opportunities outside of the classroom. Under the last Government, enrichment was erased from both our classrooms and our communities. Under this Government, that is going to change.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
UK Music’s excellent “This is Music” report found that it has become increasingly difficult for new musical artists to be heard and for careers to be built. Recompense through streaming services is minuscule and artist remuneration a real issue. On the live side, Brexit has made touring the EU almost impossible, and grassroots venues continue to close. Does the Secretary of State recognise that without meaningful action, we risk creating a music industry where only the privileged and rich can afford to build a career?
Lisa Nandy
I very much share that assessment, and we are determined that that is going to change. The hon. Member will be aware of the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts has been doing on the grassroots music levy. That is a voluntary levy. We hope the industry will step up and meet our target of 50% of all ticket sales imposing that levy in order to support grassroots music venues by the end of the year, but we have been really clear with the industry that if that does not happen, we will intervene and use statutory powers if necessary.
On the specific issue of EU touring, the hon. Member will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is pursuing that as a priority with the European Union, and we are confident that we will be able to build a better deal for not just our music artists but music artists right across Europe.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Since its success as European capital of culture in 2008, Liverpool has played a key role in the UK’s creative industries. Does my right hon. Friend agree that success should not only be measured in economic terms, and can she explain how social value and tackling the under-representation of groups should be used as a measure of success by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport?
Lisa Nandy
As, I think, the first black MP ever to represent Liverpool, my hon. Friend’s achievement is absolutely noted in this House. The way in which she has carried that work forward into this House, to ensure that she may be the first, but she certainly will not be the last, and that the voices of all people will be heard, is something that I deeply admire, and I know many other Members feel the same.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the vibrancy of the Liverpool city region has always been built on the most diverse range of music, voices and experiences. That most quintessentially British band, the Beatles, drew on their Irish heritage, Indian influences and the experience of black Americans from the south, and brought that vibrant music scene to Liverpool. I am working with the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others to make sure that we continue that tradition and that the widest range of voices from across Liverpool are heard as part of that. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss that further.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for performing arts education and training— I said that as quickly as I could!
The music and dance scheme funds exceptional schools that train the next generation of artists who will go on to lead the industry, both on and off the stage. Those schools nurture talent regardless of wealth, and are the very definition of social mobility, but some are now at risk of closure because the fund is not guaranteed beyond next year. Will the Minister guarantee secure, ringfenced funding so that those vital institutions can continue to increase access to an industry that has been identified as a leading area of growth?
Lisa Nandy
I am very aware of the pressures the hon. Member describes. My Department is currently completing business planning, so we will be able to set out precise allocations going forward. I have also been working closely with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Education Secretary to ensure that Government take a cohesive approach to this issue across the board.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
For too long, fans have been exploited by touts seeking to profiteer from the UK’s booming live events industry. Last week, we announced that time is up for ticket touts and that change is coming, by introducing a cap on the price that tickets can be resold for. We estimate that this will save fans over £100 million a year.
Richard Baker
This summer, thousands of music fans in Scotland were dismayed at having to pay hugely inflated prices to see their favourite bands, including Oasis, so my right hon. Friend’s announcement on capping the resale price of tickets will be welcome news for all those fans. Will she consider what further measures can be taken to ensure a fair deal on ticket prices for concert-goers across the UK?
Lisa Nandy
I can update my hon. Friend. Among the measures that we announced recently, we have introduced resale volume limits, which will prevent people from reselling more tickets than they were entitled to buy in the primary sale. Alongside the price cap, the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to fine non-compliant platforms up to 10% of their annual turnover, which could mean multimillion-pound fines for rogue firms if they target UK consumers.
In the case of Oasis, as many in this House will know, one of the great challenges was that many of the fans going into that queue did not know that the surge pricing model was being used, so they did not realise that they would paying vastly inflated prices by the time they got to the front of the queue. The CMA has looked at this and is taking steps to ensure that consumers have the full range of information that they need to prevent that from happening in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am aware of tickets for the Belsonic event at the Boucher Road playing fields in Belfast previously appearing on secondary sites at more than four times their original price within minutes of going on sale, so I welcome the news from the Secretary of State. What progress has been made on perhaps introducing a 5% to 10% cap on the resale of concert tickets?
Lisa Nandy
In terms of the resale of concert tickets, we have taken a decision after a long period of consultation to cap the resale at the original price. The hon. Gentleman mentions some examples, and there are others; just recently, I looked at some Radiohead tickets that were on sale originally for £100 and were being resold on one of these platforms for more than £1,000. That is an absolute rip-off for fans and has gone on in plain sight for far too long, which is why we have announced that tickets will be resold for the original price. Time is up for the ticket touts.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the House would imagine, I am having daily conversations with the BBC leadership on a number of issues, including charter renewal. I have been clear that we stand by the BBC to secure its role at the heart of national life for decades to come, but the forthcoming charter review will be a vital opportunity for us collectively to shape the BBC’s future and consider how it needs to change in this new era. In particular, for years our nations and regions have been underserved and under-represented by the concentration of power in just one part of the country when it comes to our television industry, and we are determined that the BBC will continue to lead the way on changing that.
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.[Official Report, 1 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 7WC.] (Correction) That is a disgrace, and we are determined that it will change.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The BBC removed a part of Rutger Bregman’s Reith lecture in which he alleged that Donald Trump was the most openly corrupt President in US history, doing so only after legal advice prompted by Mr Trump’s lawsuit against it. The threat of legal action is creating a dangerous precedent for media censure. If the national broadcaster cannot air robust and defensible claims even in a series of lectures designed to spark debate on contemporary issues, what hope is there for any part of our free press effectively to challenge power? We know that the Prime Minister has spoken directly with Mr Trump since the lawsuit was filed, so can the Secretary of State confirm whether the PM raised the issue of the BBC and insisted that Trump drop his ridiculous lawsuit?
Lisa Nandy
I became aware of the particular issue that the hon. Lady raises last night, and I will discuss it with the BBC chairman at our next meeting on Monday. Obviously it is absolutely essential that our broadcasters can broadcast a full range of voices without fear or favour, whether it is pressure from Governments of any political persuasion in the UK or from Governments overseas. This Government will always fiercely defend that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
As the Secretary of State responsible for the gambling industry, I have obviously been working closely with the Chancellor to ensure that the measures she announced yesterday protect people who gather great joy from an industry that is worth huge amounts to the UK economy and enjoyed by millions. In particular, the measures are to protect bingo halls, dog tracks, racing tracks, pubs and coastal communities. The measures we announced yesterday will start to make a significant dent in the numbers of children living in poverty—a legacy disgracefully left by the last Government—but the hon. Gentleman can be confident that we have made fairer choices to ensure that we protect things that millions of people in this country enjoy.
Charlie Dewhirst
The Chancellor’s announcements in yesterday’s Budget in relation to gambling duty could cost the industry up to 16,000 jobs, largely in the high- tech part of that industry, and move £6 billion of gambling stakes into the black market. I know that the Secretary of State is a very reasonable individual—she would make an excellent future leader of her party—so does she agree that taxing something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and that this will move problem gamblers into a less regulated, illegal space?
Lisa Nandy
The Minister for gambling, my hon. Friend Baroness Twycross, and I have obviously looked at this issue as part of the work we have been doing in the run-up to the Budget, and I am sure she would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Gentleman. We have sought to limit the economic impact of this decision on the high street and focus the tax rises on parts of the gambling industry that have lower operating costs. For precisely the reasons the hon. Gentleman has outlined, we have also brought forward measures in the Budget to permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail and hospitality properties, which we think will help mitigate some of the impact on betting shops. We are aware of the challenges that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but Governments cannot duck choices, and our choice is to lift 450,000 children out of poverty to make a dent in the figure of 4.5 million left by the previous Government.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the Chancellor on making the decision to tax online gambling in particular. The fact that people effectively have a casino in their pocket destroys lives and families, and it is right that we send that strong signal, as well as make sure money is available to tackle the insidious moral scar of child poverty that was left by the previous Government. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how we will ensure that the way we conduct gambling in this country provides better protection to those families and individuals who end up being exposed to some of the most insidious practices of the gambling industry?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend that child poverty is a moral scar on the soul of this nation. Where we differ slightly is that for me and our Government, this is not about sending a signal to the gambling industry. It is simply about making the right choices—the fairest choices—in order to reverse some of the damage done by the last Government. Gambling is enjoyed by millions of people in this country without harm, but it does cause significant harm for a minority. We introduced the gambling levy to ensure that we can invest in prevention and support for those affected, and we have allocated an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years, to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. As the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) has raised and as my hon. Friend has mentioned, the illegal market is where an unregulated industry can cause serious harm, and we are determined to tackle it.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Mr Speaker, this Labour Government are committed to delivering for communities in every part of our United Kingdom. That is why we have launched the town of culture competition, to celebrate the people, heritage and creativity of the towns that enrich our national story. I encourage every town—even Chorley—to apply, and urge Members across the House to keep an eye out for the applications, which will be opening soon.
We have also launched Euro 2028, bringing global audiences and economic opportunity to cities across the UK and Ireland, and we are acting to protect fans everywhere by cracking down on ticket touts. Finally, I congratulate Scotland on qualifying for the world cup for the first time in 28 years.
Lisa Nandy
“Or watch rugby league”, says Mr Speaker. Football is nothing without the fans, and my hon. Friend is right to say that it must be affordable for people across the country. The Premier League has shown enormous leadership through the £30 away cap—that is an excellent example of that principle. This is precisely why this Government wasted no time in passing the Football Governance Act 2025 with the permission of both Houses, which implements minimum engagement standards, including requiring clubs to consult fans on ticket prices.
Lisa Nandy
I think the hon. Gentleman united us all, wishing a happy Lancashire Day, but perhaps that was the beginning and end of the cross-party unity. I am enormously proud that this Government have finally acted on the calls from mayors across the political spectrum—including one Boris Johnson in 2013 when he was the Mayor of London—to implement a visitor levy on short-term overnight accommodation. We have not just done that: we have handed the power to regions themselves to implement it. The shadow Secretary of State talks about the burden on industry. He will know full well that the levy will be paid by visitors, not by the tourism industry. It surely cannot be right that England is the only country in the G7 where a national Government prevent their local authorities and mayors from implementing tourist levies.
Nigel Huddleston
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?
Lisa Nandy
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but with respect, he is talking absolute nonsense. This Government inherited a situation where there had been no strategy for this country’s young people for nearly two decades, where the arts had been underfunded, where capital projects had not been gripped and where sports were left languishing while demand soared. We have turned that around, with the new covenant with civil society to extend that partnership to every part of the country, a new national youth strategy, and funding for arts everywhere, not just in some parts of the country. I am proud of the Budget, especially as it introduces a visitor levy that will raise millions of pounds in parts of the country that were underserved by the last Conservative Government for far too long.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
Yes, of course, and in fact we already are. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have convened a series of roundtables, and we are not just talking to big tech companies, but a full range of tech companies, hearing a range of views. For the first time, we are bringing together creators and tech companies. Many of them, as the right hon. Gentleman alludes to, are starting to create their own deals, which we encourage. We do not believe that that negates the need for licensing or the transparency in the legislation that we promised here and in the other place, but I am happy to continue that conversation with them and with him.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
Obviously I speak regularly to the Energy Secretary, and I am happy to do so, but the hon. Gentleman should know that I share my right hon. Friend’s commitment to turning this country into a clean energy powerhouse and ensuring that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine receive the benefits in the form of lower bills and better energy security.
The point of the visitor levy is that it gives powers to local areas to raise their own funds and decide how they are spent. I would have thought that everybody in this House should be able to support that.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Isle of Wight Youth Trust is set to lose £200,000-worth of funding by the end of the financial year. Early support hubs will lose funding across the country, and up to half the 24 surveyed said that they may close services. Will the Secretary of State speak to cross-departmental colleagues to ensure that bridge funding is put in place, so that no young person loses out?
Lisa Nandy
Our forthcoming national youth strategy will meet our pledge to ensure that there is no reduction in youth funding and that every pound is spent better, with a particular focus on rebuilding those places and spaces that have been allowed to fall into disrepair or have been lost. On the particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I appreciate that it is urgent. I am happy to take it away with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and to ensure that we get the hon. Gentleman a proper reply.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
I can hear from those on the other side of the House that a lot of hon. Members feel very strongly about this issue, and they have made representations on it over a long period of time. My hon. Friend will know that new measures are coming into force in June to address SLAPPs in relation to cases of economic crime. That was started under the previous Government and has continued under this one. It is my belief that we should take sexual harassment and abuse every bit as seriously as economic crime, and this is an area where action is long overdue. I am happy to work with the media Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to achieve that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Telegraph Media Group: Anticipated Acquisition
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I wish to update the House on the sale of the Telegraph Media Group, following the recent withdrawal of the RedBird Capital Partners-led bid to acquire the title, and the news announced on Saturday 22 November that RedBird IMI has signed an agreement with Daily Mail and General Trust, entering into a period of exclusivity to finalise the terms of the transaction.
The Telegraph has been in limbo for a long time. Until now, I have sought to afford the parties selling the call option to own The Telegraph sufficient time to independently manage the process. The 19 months have passed since RedBird IMI announced its intention to sell. A sale has still not happened and the situation has become unsustainable. My particular concerns are that the protracted uncertainty has been detrimental to the stability of The Telegraph and its staff and to the investment appeal of the sector as a whole.
Under the terms of the order made in January 2024, transfer of the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is only permitted with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. RedBird IMI and DMGT have said they will use their exclusivity period to prepare the necessary request for securing that consent, which they say they expect to happen quickly. Given how much time has already elapsed in this case and the need for the period of uncertainty to be ended, I expect the submission of that request to take no longer than three weeks. My intention is to build a constructive path toward a timely sale, without further delay, that is in the public interest. In this context I will review any new acquisition of the Telegraph, guided by the following principles in the exercise of my powers:
Upholding the public interest: the media public interest considerations set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 must be properly investigated and appropriately upheld under any new ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.
Exclusion of foreign state funding: any future owner of the Telegraph Media Group, and their controlling entities, must be completely free from any prohibited foreign state influence.
Protecting The Telegraph: until the future ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is resolved and any regulatory scrutiny is completed, the editorial independence of The Telegraph business must be suitably protected.
I reserve my right to intervene under my powers and duties as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002.
I will continue to monitor developments very closely and will update Parliament on this matter as appropriate at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS1090]
UK Commission on Covid Commemoration Report: Government Response
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Five years ago the world as we knew it stopped. Covid-19 affected everyone in so many different ways, and many continue to feel those impacts.
Today, the Government have published its official response to the report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration which sets out a programme of commemorative activity to mark this unique and challenging period in our country’s history. This response has now been presented to both Houses of Parliament.
I want to place on record my thanks to the right hon. the Baroness Morgan of Cotes and all the commissioners for the care and consideration the commission gave to the report and for its ongoing advice as we have carefully reflected on the recommendations. This Government are grateful to the devolved Governments, with whom we have worked closely to ensure that the response to the commission’s reflects the efforts of individuals and groups across the United Kingdom.
The impact of covid-19 on all of our lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during this time. As Secretary of State, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of covid-19 bereaved family groups that have worked closely with us in developing this programme. I have heard at first hand the traumatic impact of not being able to be with their loved one, to hold their hand, to say goodbye.
I pay tribute to the covid-19 bereaved families groups for their tireless voluntary efforts to provide networks of support to help others feel less alone or isolated in their grief, while carrying their own. I am also grateful for their input to the commission and their ongoing work with my Department in developing this programme. As we remember and honour their loss, we are committed to continuing to work together as this programme is delivered.
The pandemic saw our communities come together in extraordinary ways to help and support each other in the most difficult of times. We saw acts of courage and dedication from the key workers who kept vital services running, and the millions who volunteered to support others in their time of need. We thank all those who worked so hard to keep our country going and these acts of service will be remembered as part of this commemorative programme.
In March, we marked the fifth anniversary of the pandemic with the covid-19 day of reflection, with events held across the country allowing people to remember in a way that was meaningful to them. In contrast to the experiences of isolation and separation we felt during the pandemic, the day of reflection was a chance for us to come together to remember the lives lost, the sacrifices made, and the impacts that many continue to feel. We will come together again on Sunday 8 March 2026 for this important day.
We will create dedicated webpages on gov.uk to provide information on covid-19 commemoration. This will include a repository of oral histories to ensure that the experiences of the pandemic are not forgotten, as well as details on the many covid-19 memorials that have been created across the country. Working in partnership with NHS Charities Together and Forestry England we will create new covid-19 commemorative spaces that reflect the importance of nature and the outdoors throughout the pandemic and provide spaces for contemplative reflection.
This Government are determined to learn the lessons from the covid-19 pandemic and build our national resilience. I have heard movingly from those who lost a loved one that they do not want others to experience their suffering. As the commission recommended, we will launch a new UK-wide fellowship scheme on natural hazards, delivered by UKRI. to support future national resilience as part of the commemorative programme to honour the loss and sacrifice.
In Parliament, we look across the River Thames to the national covid memorial wall. Nearly a quarter of a million hand-painted hearts span the wall as an outpouring of love created by the bereaved, for the bereaved. This memorial matters greatly to the whole country. I want to thank the friends of the wall for their tireless commitment and dedication to care for the wall. As we commemorate the pandemic, we are committed to working with the friends of the wall and the local partners to preserve the wall.
Through this programme of commemoration we will ensure that those we lost are honoured, that we remember the sacrifices and resilience of so many during this unprecedented time in our history, and that as a country we do not forget.
[HCWS1054]
Points of Order
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. The request that I made to officials in my Department was relayed to Mr Kogan. It was, of course, his choice whether to take that advice, but he did. I have to be clear with the hon. Gentleman: from the moment I discovered that donations had been made to my campaign, I did not have any discussions with Mr Kogan about this or any other matter, and I recused myself from the process. I took that seriously. It was for the Minister for Sport to make the final decision, which she did, but from that point, I did not have direct conversations with Mr Kogan until the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had been able to do his work. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition recently visited my constituency for her tool theft campaign, but I do not think that she has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has already secured changes through the Sentencing Bill. The right hon. Lady did not notify me of her visit, and given that she is a long-standing Member of this House, I seek your advice on how she can be reminded of the courtesies to be afforded to Members.
Independent Football Regulator
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
In 2021, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set up the fan-led review of football, and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed by Members from all sides of the House. The previous Government promised that they would deliver this regulator, but they did not, leaving fans in the lurch as a result. This Government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year, because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.
To make that a reality, the Minister for Sport confirmed David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator on 6 October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate, warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The report also makes it clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that, as soon as I became aware of the donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process.
However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the highest standards were not met. As the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that, and it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for the error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my Department.
Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what my constituents and I lived through in Wigan. Implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this Government and, led by David Kogan, the Independent Football Regulator will get on with the job.
We are here today to debate process, but this is also about real-world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County and Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday, for Wigan, Reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We are putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Mr French
Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.
Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.
The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him?
Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?
Lisa Nandy
I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. First, this process was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, and when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is the proper role of this House. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear—in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman just asserted—that I personally fell short of what was expected on one occasion. There were two other technical breaches from the Department, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I take full responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister. As he will know, if he has read the report, I personally took the decision to ask Mr Kogan to put that information in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at his hearing to ensure that it had full information as soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about the donation. Mr Kogan was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister’s campaign, but I am the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; my Department ran this process, and it is for me to take full responsibility for it.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume that at some point he will come back to correct the record. When he speaks to his colleagues, he will know that one of them—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—oversaw the process before the general election, at a time when they were proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and governance Act, which they later opposed.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know that Mr Kogan was approached for this job under the last Conservative Government and put on the list, which I inherited from the last Government. I want to be crystal clear on this point. Mr Kogan was not added to the list after the general election; he was on the list from the last Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman talks about cronies. [Interruption.] The Opposition can chunter all they like, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about a man who has extensive media experience and represented the Premier League, the English Football League, the National Football League and others throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list by the last Government in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor. If he is such a crony and unfit to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), appoint him to the board of Channel 4? It just does not stack up. Mr Kogan was so good that the last Government approached him themselves.
Finally, I am happy to answer extensive questions about this issue. That is why I have chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), made the final decision. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Charlton Athletic fan, and I am a bit surprised that, given its experience of bad owners, he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestionable.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that in the terrible time that Sheffield Wednesday fans have been through in the last few months, not one of them has ever asked me what is happening with this report and review? They say to me, “How quickly can we get a regulator in place who will deal with owners like Chansiri who are ruining our club?” Does the Secretary of State agree that in the appointment of David Kogan, we have someone who is knowledgeable, tough, determined and independent of bad football owners and who will act on behalf of football fans? Is not the fundamental difference here between those of us on the Government Benches who support independent regulation, and those on the Opposition Benches who have given up on it and will simply kowtow to bad owners of football clubs?
Lisa Nandy
As always, my hon. Friend has taken this debate back to focusing on the people who matter most: the fans. They have been through hell over recent years as the last Government committed to act, then dragged their feet, and then refused to fulfil that promise to those fans. It was shameful to see Conservative Members go through the Lobby to vote against their own Bill, but I put on record my thanks to Dame Tracey Crouch for all the work she did and continues to do to uphold that promise. I also sincerely thank my hon. Friend; he and I have had numerous conversations over the course of the saga that has developed at Sheffield Wednesday, and I know how active he has been. That is the approach that this Government will always take. We will not stand by and let football fans pay the price when bad owners take over their clubs; we are putting those fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms.
The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair?
Lisa Nandy
All the way through this process, I have complied fully with the independent commissioner, because I believe that that is important. That stands in contrast to the last Government, multiple members of which broke not just the public appointments code but the ministerial code. The Conservatives still have a member of their Front-Bench team who broke the ministerial code—she now sits on their Front Bench as the shadow Foreign Secretary. Unlike them, we comply with these processes and accept the consequences. However, there has been an independent investigation—it has been going on for six months. I do not know how the hon. Lady has missed it; that is what we are discussing today.
She has also said to me that we need to earn the trust of the footballing world. Throughout the passage of the Football Governance Act 2025, as Conservative Members well know from when they were supporting it, numerous people were concerned about the appointment of anybody to take on the role of chair. One of those was Karren Brady, a very distinguished Member of the House of Lords, with extensive experience in football. Recently, she said that David Kogan has
“dealt with the EFL, Uefa, the women’s game and international bodies. That matters, because football isn’t just about the elite—it’s a pyramid, and if the top crumbles, the base cracks with it…And, more importantly, he’s worked in governance roles that demand accountability.”
If Members want any further evidence of the confidence that the appointment of David Kogan commands across the footballing world, it is that the staunchest critics of the Government’s approach to implementing a football regulator in the first place have come out strongly in support of the man who is already cracking on with putting football fans back at the heart of the game.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
When Tracey Crouch was appointed to lead the review of football governance, there was no opposition from Labour Members or the fans to the idea that a Conservative was going to lead that review; there was co-operation right across this House. When it was expedient for them, the Conservatives supported the fan-led review, but when the Bill went before Parliament and push came to shove, they opposed it. They are using it as a political football, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the football fans do not give a damn about this Westminster bubble argument? What they want is a regulator that is going to be on their side.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the years of work that he put into ensuring that we reached this point. I thank him personally as well, because when my club, Wigan Athletic, was in trouble, not once but twice, he and other members of the Select Committee could not have been more supportive in making sure that we got the right outcome and saved our club.
I also thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because even though he has latterly decided that this is a terrible appointment and that the Football Governance Act is a terrible thing, a couple of years ago he said this to the then Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew):
“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]
I am not sure whether the then Minister could give an answer at that time, but I am happy to say that we certainly will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take
“concrete steps to reassure the football community”
of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.
The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential for the public to be able to have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the many debacles that we saw under the last Government. That is why I personally requested that Mr Kogan make that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself. The hon. Lady is also right to say that the Committee made a recommendation to Mr Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of Government. Although that was not a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard it loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was so quick to recuse myself from the process and take no further decisions in it.
The hon. Lady has indeed raised with me, and with the permanent secretary, the occasions on which the Department has fallen short. We take that very seriously, and we have committed to come back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we are taking. This is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we get it right, but I might add that the DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments—I think that we make nearly 50% of all such appointments across Government—and that is even more reason for us to ensure that the proper processes are in place. We are looking at that at the moment, and will come back to the hon. Lady very quickly.
May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady’s constituents? I remember that when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, Portsmouth fans jumped on to a Zoom call with us at very short notice, and could not have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us to pull through a difficult time. I remember that time as if it were yesterday. I remember how much pain and anxiety we were going through. The footballing world was there for us, and my commitment to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, is that this Government will be there for them too.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
We now have an excellent, highly qualified individual who has been appointed to chair the football regulator, and we have an excellent Secretary of State who made a mistake for which she has apologised. Even the commissioner said that the breach of the code
“was not a knowing breach.”
What football fans want is not this debate in Parliament today; what they want is for the Secretary of State to get on with the job, to protect clubs and to protect supporters. Can I encourage her to ignore the Opposition, who are playing politics with our national game, and just get on with the job?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am pleased that he has joined the Select Committee. He has extensive knowledge of football and has been a consistent champion of football fans, and I very much support what he has said. This Government are absolutely determined to appoint the right people to the right positions, so that when fans go through the difficulties caused by poor owners, as they did at Charlton, they do not feel that they have nowhere to turn.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entirely right to say that we need the tightest possible processes. That is why the Prime Minister took steps, when he was first elected as Prime Minister, to strengthen the ministerial code and also to strengthen the oversight powers of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, in relation to the code. However, as the report makes clear, in this particular case I did ask for information about all donations to my leadership campaign. I was given the information but it turned out to be incomplete, and as soon as I was notified that that was the case, I took the decision to declare it, to ensure that the Select Committee was aware of it, and to recuse myself from the process.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than obstructing and delaying the work of the Independent Football Regulator, the Opposition need to do right by the fans and let David Kogan get on with the job? May I also request—slightly selfishly, as a Carlisle United fan—that one of the first things he does is press the English Football League to lift the limit on the number of places for promotion from the national league?
Lisa Nandy
I know that my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her constituents, and that this is something they care about. Both the Minister for Sport and I have heard the strength of feeling from the national league. This matter is not within the scope of the Independent Football Regulator—we deliberately kept its remit tight so it could focus on the many issues that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—but I know that what has been said has been heard by the EFL, and the Government will continue to follow this closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I like and respect the right hon. Lady and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do wonder whether she would have been quite so forgiving had I chosen to appoint a Tory donor to lead this regulatory body. Moreover, although I supported the establishment of the regulator and, indeed, initiated it at the time of the risk of a European Super League, I fear that since then the regulator has become excessively bureaucratic. It risks deterring international investment and the broader investment in the game that has been so beneficial for it. Does the right hon. Lady think that it might be time to look again at this regulator, and to put more emphasis on self-governance in football? I think that in recent years, it has shown itself to be capable of stepping up to the challenge.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has taken, but I must say to him that if he does not think that David Kogan was fit to be considered because he was a Labour donor, his party should not have put him on the list while knowing full well that he was a Labour donor, or, indeed, appointed him to the board of Channel 4. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for the Opposition, but I am afraid that that is the fact of the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is time to reconsider the Independent Football Regulator. Football fans were promised in 2021 that the last Government would act to deal with the many problems that we had seen in football clubs throughout the country, but they had to wait for a Labour Government to make good on that promise. In October this year, the Minister for Sport was able to confirm that Mr Kogan had been appointed and that we would start that work immediately. He has had a few weeks in which to get on with the job, and he has already achieved more in that time than the last Conservative Government achieved in 14 years.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Football Governance Act is an excellent Act which was driven through this place by the Tory Government, but at the very last minute, on Third Reading, they decided to oppose it. That was horrendous behaviour. It is worth wondering why that happened. On the appointment of Mr Kogan, it has been said in many places that he was on a list, had been approached by the Conservative Government about taking up the position, and was then offered it by the Labour Government. What evidence do the Labour Government have to prove that was the case?
Lisa Nandy
Well, I can confirm that Mr Kogan was on the list that was held by the Department; there are obviously records of that. I was also presented with that list when I took up this post in the summer of 2024. Not only was Mr Kogan on that list, having been approached by a Conservative Government about the job, but he was appointed to the board of Channel 4 by the last Conservative Government, so the Conservatives are obviously well aware of his credentials for the job.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) mentioned Dame Tracey Crouch, I take this opportunity to thank her for the work that she has done. I was reflecting recently on how far the Opposition have fallen from the days when they had Members of Parliament like Dame Tracey Crouch, who could command the respect of the whole House.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
During the Select Committee pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, I raised the issue of whether his appointment would be construed as being politically biased. Does the Secretary of State accept that appointing a known Labour donor to lead an independent regulator has created exactly the perception of political bias that I warned about during that hearing?
Lisa Nandy
As I have made clear, David Kogan was approached under the last Government and is eminently qualified for the job. Of course, as soon as I knew about the donations, I chose to declare them and recuse myself, and I then played no further part in the process, but I have a responsibility to football fans the length and breadth of this country to appoint the right person to this job, and there is no question but that David Kogan was the outstanding candidate—as he is already proving, having wasted no time in getting on with the job.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister spoke of risks to football. We need to be clear that the only risk to brilliant, grassroots, local community football clubs, such as Altrincham FC, is the Conservative party’s constant attempts to oppose and obstruct an Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State has taken on board the findings of the investigation and has taken responsibility. Does she agree that it is unedifying to watch the Opposition Front Benchers use this as another opportunity to obstruct an Independent Football Regulator, and stand against the best interests of the game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for being such a fantastic champion for his constituents; it was a pleasure to meet some of them when I came to his constituency not that long ago. I agree with him that the Conservatives appear to have no respect for football fans, for independent processes, or even for their own manifesto, which made it crystal clear that they supported the Football Governance Act 2025.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his authority, declared his conflict of interest before Mr Kogan was asked to reinstate his withdrawn application? If a conflict of interest was declared, who declared it, and when?
Lisa Nandy
I think I have answered that question. I have been absolutely crystal clear: it is my Department that appoints the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. I was responsible for this process, and I take full responsibility for it. Just to be absolutely crystal clear, because hon. Members do not seem to be listening and seem to be all asking the same thing, I recused myself from the process, so it was the Minister for Sport who ultimately made the appointment decision, but I am the Secretary of State responsible for the process as a whole.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While this Government are focused on finally delivering for fans and securing the future of our national game, the record of the party opposite tells a very different story. We have for years seen Conservative donors and insiders appointed to organisations across the board—to the NHS, to the UK Health Security Agency, and to the British Museum. We have also seen major donors becoming peers, and the Conservatives opening covid VIP lanes for their pals. It is the same old question—the one that Margaret Thatcher famously asked—“Is he one of ours?” Football fans do not care who is one of “theirs”; they care about saving their clubs and having a regulator who will do that. Does the Secretary of State agree that David Kogan, as chair of the Independent Football Regulator—chosen for his experience and merit, not for party loyalty—is finally putting fans first and protecting our beautiful game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for all the work she has done to support football fans for many years, even before being elected to this place. I completely accept that appointments will be made, under any Government, involving people who have made political donations—by definition, those people want to be involved in public life—and I have never criticised the Conservatives for making appointments on that basis. When I have criticised them, it has been when there was a strong dispute about whether the candidate had any qualifications for the job. There is no such dispute in the case of David Kogan.
When I have particularly criticised the Conservatives, it has been for not being prepared to comply with and respect independent processes. That is the difference between us and them. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments decided to open an inquiry on what happened during this process. I complied with it fully throughout, and I have accepted the consequences.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I and like-minded football fans welcome the much-needed creation of an independent regulator. Indeed, I am not even questioning the merit of the individual appointed as its chair. The issue is this: the Secretary of State, by her own admission, forgot that she was given money by the new chair before he was appointed. That comes alongside the £33,410 that he has given to the Labour party over the past five years. Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, she has previously called out the Tories for double standards, said that Boris Johnson trashed the UK’s global reputation, and has, over many years, called for the Tories to “come clean”. Should she not consider her own reputation, rather than joining those sleazy ranks?
Lisa Nandy
It is difficult to know where to start, given the number of inaccuracies in that statement, but I will have a go. First of all, I did not “forget” to declare the donations; if the hon. Gentleman had read the report—he obviously has not—he would know that the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments was convinced that I did not know about those donations, and that as soon as I did know about them, I chose to declare them and recused myself from the process. He might want to reflect on that. Secondly, I think that his quote about Boris Johnson related to the abolition of the Department for International Development; he might want to go and check that as well. I have heard quite a few comments from him recently, on social media and elsewhere, about the accuracy of things said at this Dispatch Box. I absolutely stand by what I have said, and the next time he comes to this House, he might want to do a bit of homework first.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I have to say, I am quite surprised at the lack of contrition from the Secretary of State, given a very damning report. In November 2024, Mr Kogan withdrew from the application process because, he said, there was
“a lot of noise going around about Labour donors”,
but in March, in a move that the commissioner said was “highly unusual”, Mr Kogan’s candidacy was reinstated, and he was rapidly sifted, interviewed and appointed. Are the public really expected to believe that this was an open and fair process, when the decision-makers took donations from the candidate?
Lisa Nandy
Again, I think the hon. Gentleman should have more respect for the independence of these processes. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments investigated this thoroughly and found that the breach of the code was unknowing. Nevertheless, I have taken full responsibility for it.
I have to say that the Conservatives have some brass neck; when their shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was in government, she broke the ministerial code and was told to resign, but refused to do so, and she is now one of their most senior Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. She is a right honourable Lady; I know that, and I hope that everybody in this Chamber does, as well. I very much welcome the Independent Football Regulator, but my constituents have asked me to ask a question, so I will; that is my job. Yesterday it was the BBC, and today it is the football regulator appointment. The general public are sceptical of appointments that, it seems to them, may breach the code on public appointments. Public confidence is truly at an all-time low, so how can the Secretary of State ensure that positions are fit for purpose, and that political affiliation or support will never be a material consideration in appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The Prime Minister has made it clear, and the Cabinet strongly believes, that although mistakes will always be made, we have to comply fully and openly with independent processes when those mistakes are made. We have to respect those processes, and we have to accept the consequences. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the report that was written and published by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, not a single recommendation was made to me. There were recommendations for the Department, but there was not a recommendation for me. Nevertheless, I have chosen to apologise to the Prime Minister, because I believe that the right thing to do is to take responsibility for the things that we are responsible for.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC. I imagine that he is alluding to an issue that was raised yesterday by many Members of this House: the political appointments that were made to the board, and the appointment of one board member in particular, which has been highlighted by many Members as being of concern. He will know that those appointments were made under the last Conservative Government. The last Conservative Government also chose to extend the term of the board member in question, just a few weeks before they called the general election, so that board member has been in post for several years. However, there is an opportunity to look at the issue in the upcoming charter review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for explaining, and I am sure that people are glad to hear about the involvement of a sponsoring Department and a sponsoring Minister in a public appointment. In answering my question, she need not revisit the points made about her role—we all understand them, and she has explained them clearly. She will know that when a Secretary of State has made a provisional appointment, it is not unusual for it to go to No. 10 for further review. Putting aside her role, can she confirm whether anybody in No. 10 was involved in any way, shape or form in this appointment?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to clarify that this was not a prime ministerial appointment; it was an appointment made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as I discovered the donation and that the information given at the start of the process was incomplete, I chose to declare that. I recused myself from the process, and the final decision was made not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister for Sport.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Along with many others, I fully supported the Football Governance Act and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator. I accept the Secretary of State’s comment that she sincerely was not aware of the donation, but does she understand the public’s perception that an “independent” appointee was chosen because of their donations to the party in government? What steps will she and the Government take to review the process and make improvement, so that it commands the public’s trust and is completely unimpeachable? I understand her comment about donors wanting to participate in public life, but the Government should consider putting down a really clear marker about the kind of roles donors can and cannot perform in support of the Government.
Lisa Nandy
Oversight of the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions and comments about the need to uphold the highest standards. In relation to this appointment, we did not meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process, and the post required a specialist skillset, and the appointment took place under two different Governments. That is not to make excuses; it is just to explain that this process was highly unusual. We have learned lessons from it, and we are implementing the commissioner’s recommendations in full.
In the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr Kogan and the Independent Football Regulator are able to deliver on the promise that we will deal with bad owners and put fans back at the heart of the game. I am confident that we have made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that since he was appointed on 6 October, he has wasted no time at all in getting on with the job.
Restoration of War Memorials
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 10 November 2025 in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, Baroness Twycross:
As we mark 80 years since the end of the second world war, the Government are providing £2 million funding to support the conservation and repair of war memorials across the UK.
The nation’s war memorials stand as enduring symbols of the sacrifice made by servicemen and women in conflicts past and present. In communities across the country, they are central to acts of remembrance and connect us to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy today.
The War Memorials Trust has identified that there is a backlog in the conservation of our war memorials. Addressing this will enhance local neighbourhoods and give communities a focal point for commemorations. It will support pride in place and improve the local environment for everyone.
This new funding will be made via an investment in the National Heritage Memorial Fund endowment. The memorial fund has been safeguarding the UK’s most important heritage for 45 years, and exists to form a UK-wide memorial in honour of those who have given their lives to the country.
NHMF will work with the War Memorials Trust, Historic England and other partners across the UK to protect and repair their local war memorials through grants, expert advice and guidance, ensuring these historic monuments can continue to serve as places for remembrance and education.
We expect to announce further details of the fund in due course.
[HCWS1029]
BBC Leadership
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.
As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.
The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.
The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.
The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.
The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.
We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.
I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
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.
Lisa Nandy
May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I know that the situation that has unfolded over the past week has been of serious concern to him. I say from the outset that I strongly agree with him that two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months. I have come to this House too many times to share progress updates after editorial failings. He mentioned examples relating to Gaza and Glastonbury, but there have been others as well. I am pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Dr Samir Shah, has accepted the instances where the institution has made mistakes. I am pleased that he has been open with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), about that, and I am pleased that he is setting out the concrete actions that will follow.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that clear actions are important; they must be swift, robust and transparent. I also strongly agree with him that there is a problem with consistency and the way that standards are applied, which leaves individual journalists and presenters in a very difficult position. I have made that point to the chairman, and previously to the director general.
I have had discussions with the chairman of the board about the search for a director general. The House should be aware that the Government do not appoint the director general. As set out in the charter, that is a matter solely for the board, but we stand ready to provide support, where it is requested and necessary, to make sure that we get the highest-calibre individual. I understand from the board that there is a desire to move quickly on that, but that the existing director general will remain in place to ensure a smooth transition, and I will update the House as I receive further information.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the BBC Arabic service and funding for the World Service. It is important to recognise that there have been serious concerns and failings on the part of the BBC Arabic service. Dr Shah, in response to that issue, set out in a letter to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a number of steps that are being taken. I understand that they include structural changes, as well as staff changes, but I gently push back against the assertion that this issue should affect our support for the World Service. The World Service is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness, of which there are many in the world at the moment. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Whatever the position regarding Donald Trump, who has said far worse than what was shown in the wrongly edited clip, the only ones rubbing their hands with glee during this debacle are those who do not want a free press—those politicians who have deep pockets lined by goodness knows who, and who cosplay as journalists on RT and GB News to spread division and hatred. I hope that all of us in this House agree with the principle of keeping our public broadcaster free from political interference. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to review the influence of former Conservative spin doctor Robbie Gibb on the BBC’s board?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain.
However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady asks if we will stand up for the BBC, and she will have heard my words to the House today. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in the country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. How will we stand up for the BBC? We will put it on a firm footing through the charter process that we are about to start. On her concerns about board members, she will have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this. I wholeheartedly welcome her words that political figures should not be presenters of the news. Surely that should apply also to the arbiters of news standards. Could these reforms therefore look at the four-person editorial standards committee, given that two of them have resigned, leaving as its most senior member someone who has owned a newspaper in his time, breaching the Independent Press Standards Organisation guidelines—the ex-Conservative director of communications, Robbie Gibb?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend mentions the editorial guidance and standards committee, which has been the source of much debate and scrutiny over recent days. I have discussed this directly with the chair of the BBC. I understand that changes to that committee are planned, and I very much welcome that decision.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.
That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?
On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?
Lisa Nandy
First, I welcome the action that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is taking, which she has announced to the House. To maintain confidence in the BBC, it is absolutely essential that the BBC is transparent about the actions it has taken and the actions it intends to take. It is very welcome that she is ensuring that the fullest explanation is given not just to this House, but to the public.
On the timing of the charter review, the hon. Lady will have heard what I said to her Committee when I appeared before it recently, which is that we will start the charter review process before the end of the year. I will of course return to this House as soon as the timing is finalised to give Members a chance to debate it.
The hon. Lady asked what action we, as a Government, are taking to support the board through what is clearly a tumultuous time. I have been working very closely with the chairman of the BBC in recent days—I have spoken to him daily—and with the director general. We have been clear as a Government that we stand ready to provide all the support the board needs to appoint the highest calibre person to the post of director general and to consider what changes it might want to make to senior leadership structures and roles as a result of its deliberations. The BBC is of course independent of Government and it is essential that it is given the space to be able to get on with that process, but we have been working very closely with the BBC chairman, at his request, in order to make sure that the BBC can continue to thrive.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained?
Lisa Nandy
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As well as the very important issues around standards, I would add trust, accountability and independence from Government—any Government, including ours—because the BBC plays a critical role in holding up a mirror not just to society but to Governments of all political persuasions. I would add that the BBC has always been one of the strongest drivers of the creative industries across every nation and region. As part of the charter review process, we will be working to strengthen that to make sure that the BBC is able to tell the story of our whole nation, and not just some of it.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I join the Culture Secretary in paying tribute to the director general of the BBC—I found him helpful on issues such as antisemitism—but the problem with the BBC goes much deeper than the current leadership. Does she agree, first of all, that it goes to the cultural disposition of the BBC? People who work for it have an overwhelmingly metropolitan outlook and obsess about issues such as Black Lives Matter and Palestine in a way that suburban and provincial England does not obsess? Moreover, my constituents are sick of waiting for the lecture from the BBC in output such as drama. That is the case from other broadcasters, but the difference with the BBC is that my constituents pay for it. There is a real problem with the BBC now, whereby many people feel that it represents half the United Kingdom and not the other half. Does she agree that, for those of us who want the BBC to succeed, that must be addressed as a matter of urgency?
Lisa Nandy
The challenges the right hon. Gentleman describes do not specifically relate just to the BBC. I have voiced concerns, as have many Conservative Culture Secretaries previously, about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry in one background and from one region. I believe, as many of my Conservative predecessors have done, that that needs to change. I would caution focusing particularly on the BBC, because that is a problem for the media industry as a whole and therefore for the public debate. The BBC over the years, through its work at Media City in Salford and at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, is one of the organisations that is at the forefront of changing that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, that there has to be a level of internal challenge within any successful organisation. In the discussions I have been having with the chairman of the BBC and the director general in recent days, that has been the subject of many of the concerns that I have raised.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former journalist and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I know more than most some of the failings of the BBC, but I also recognise some of its great strengths, not least in combating misinformation online. I know many of its journalists personally and many, many of them take ultra seriously their duties to provide fair, impartial and, yes, fearless news coverage. It is the fearlessness that often upsets this House, on either side. Yes, this was a serious error by the “Panorama” team and a correction should have been issued swiftly, but that does not mean that the BBC as an institution should be undermined. There are enemies on the left and the right who want to see the demise of the BBC, and they would rue that day should it ever happen.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend first on the point he makes about the seriousness of some of the failings and the need to uphold the highest standards. I also agree about the challenges and attacks that the BBC faces from both left and right. The real division in the debate over the BBC is not between left and right; it is between those of us who think that the national broadcaster is there to represent their world view and those of us who believe that our national broadcaster is here to challenge all of us.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively?
Lisa Nandy
I have reflected concern about the time it takes to respond to the BBC leadership, not just in relation to this episode, but previously. It really does undermine trust and confidence in the BBC. When a process takes time, and if there is no proper explanation as to why it has taken some time, it leads people to believe that there is complacency at the top of the organisation. I think the chairman has heard that loud and clear and has taken it on board as part of the learning from this episode. I have shared some of my frustrations with the BBC leadership and the failings that have happened over the past 16 months with this House, as have others, because the BBC holds such an important place in our national life and must command the trust of the whole public.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we can all hear the Secretary of State’s frustration that we are in this position. She is absolutely right that there must be a period of introspection at the BBC about how this has come to pass, because it is true that trust in our national institutions is declining. However, I must take issue with her comment that the BBC is a national institution that belongs to us all. My constituents—and, I wager, those of Members across this House—are deeply concerned by the political attacks on the BBC, whether from home or abroad, and want to see it protected, because they think they own it. The honest truth, however, is that at the moment they do not own it. In the past, my right hon. Friend has been interested in these ideas; with the charter renewal coming up, might she meet a group of us to look at how ideas such as mutualisation and allowing the public to be part of running the organisation might be the future in giving back trust and confidence in the BBC and genuinely protecting it from political institutions?
Lisa Nandy
I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a
“direct call for violent action”—
something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I do not think any reasonable person can think that the programme put out by “Panorama” was a mistake. It was clearly manipulation with a purpose, and unfortunately it follows a long line—I will not list all the examples, as other hon. Members have done that, but they include Gaza, anti-women trans issues and Europe. To give an example from my constituency, a programme was put out a few years ago called “People Like Us”, where contributors—young women—had been paid to fight and other contributors had been sent on holiday in order to get them to say particular things. I do not think that the biggest threat to the BBC is some conspiracy. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that the biggest threat to the BBC is a failure to uphold objectivity and the standards we expect from the BBC.
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view about the seriousness of the failings, which the BBC has accepted this week, and the need for clear, robust, firm and swift action in response. I would, though, remind the House that the BBC is responsible for thousands of hours of output across multiple channels, including some of the most popular and entertaining programmes in this country and some of the highest-quality children’s television in the world. It is also responsible for the BBC World Service, which is renowned and revered the world over. It plays an essential role in our global democracy and is responsible for regional news that is highly trusted. It reaches stories, people and communities that others cannot reach. I say that not to downplay in any sense the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised this week, but just to make clear that the BBC as an institution is essential to this country, and that when we hold it to the highest standards, it is because we need it to thrive.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is not for me or any Government to decide who is employed by the BBC and who is not, but I agree, of course, that integrity and impartiality are vital.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Like some other colleagues in the House, I often start my morning with Dotty on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and end my days with Amelia on “BBC Look East”. I say that because it demonstrates that the BBC is much more than its editorial decision making at the national level. Every day, thousands of BBC staff are telling our stories, representing our communities and being part of the fabric of this country.
As a former official of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union, I have spoken to many BBC staff and members of the National Union of Journalists and BECTU over recent days who are horrified by some of the coverage of this matter. They want accountability, and they want the BBC to restore its trust, but they also want to hear the message that their work is valued and that they are part of the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the talent that makes the BBC an institution and that that talent needs to be nurtured, while dealing with the leadership?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend not just for the point he made but for the compelling way in which he made it. Like him, I have been astonished by the calibre of BBC staff, whether the back-office staff who so often do not get the credit, the journalists who work tirelessly in communities up and down the country to tell stories that otherwise would not be heard, or the young apprentices who start out with the most incredible opportunities and go on to have amazing careers because of the institution that the BBC is and the work that is done to support them.
I know that this issue has had an impact on many BBC journalists. I want them to hear directly from the Government how much we value, treasure and support them. I also say to the House that in all the conversations I have had with major investors who come to this country to invest in film and TV production, they say that the BBC is—for all of them, without exception —a major draw because of the work it does in skilling up a generation of talent and providing the institutions and facilities those investors need to come here.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the statement, but this is not just about editorial challenges for the BBC; there has been a total lack of deftness in dealing with talent-related issues and other scandals over the past few years. There are also governance issues with BBC Studios—a commercial organisation with separate whistleblowing schemes—hiding behind the BBC brand. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the broader skills that are needed to make the changes necessary so that the BBC can maximise its huge global opportunities in both news and productions?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member is right to raise the lack of deftness—and, I would add, the lack of urgency—in the handling of some of the issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Let this be the moment that that changes. That is the tone and nature of the conversations I have been having with the BBC’s senior leadership. I also echo the points he made about the skillsets required to ensure that the BBC can get on to a firm footing as we begin this next chapter.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation
“must turn this crisis into an opportunity.”
Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the letter that I received earlier today. I have discussed the delay in issuing an apology with the BBC and been given a full account by the chairman of the board. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the BBC, but she will have heard that the Select Committee intends to call members of that BBC committee, and I am sure the Select Committee will raise that question with them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will have heard the comments I made about the legal threshold that must be met for any changes in leadership. The Government appoint the chair of the BBC; we do not appoint individual staff members. The board member that he mentioned was appointed by the last Conservative Government and his term was renewed just weeks before the general election, so I cannot take the action that he requests.
The hon. Member mentioned the nations and regions, which are close to my heart as well. Through the charter review process, we will seek to ensure that the BBC’s direction can be driven through its nations and regions and that people in every part of the UK can see a fair share of content that reflects their lives, their communities and their contribution.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I spent time yesterday with journalists at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire admiring their dedication and professionalism, which stands in marked contrast to this shabby debacle that sullies a great institution’s reputation. Is not part of the problem the fragmentation of what should be a public service? Frankly, this failure is symptomatic of the long-term fragmentation of so many of our public services as a consequence of the Conservative Government.
Lisa Nandy
As I said to the House just a moment ago, the charter review marks the start of the next chapter of the BBC’s long and proud history. That will be the moment when we can come together as a whole House and a whole country to agree the future of the BBC.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There are certainly many questions—particularly for those who deliberately set out to destroy the BBC—but I want to ask the Secretary of State this one. In the absence of the ability to remove certain members from the board, will she make a commitment that all future appointments should be conducted through a transparent process rather than being political appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The House was asked to approve the terms of the last charter. Similarly, the House will be asked to approve the terms of the next charter, which will set out how the BBC will operate for the next decade. It will certainly look at appointments, transparency and structures, and that will be the hon. Member’s opportunity to get involved.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
Many have expressed their annoyance at the BBC in recent days for being too woke, too Tory or too liberal—or, in my case, for allowing the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to appear on the “Question Time” panel more often than he has appeared in his own constituency. Is not the fact that the BBC has been attacked by every side evidence that it continues to make every effort to maintain balance in a world of increasingly polarised and divisive media?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?
Lisa Nandy
I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point about trust. The BBC is one of the most trusted institutions not just in our country but in the world. We seek to ensure that it upholds the highest standards because that is of such value and importance to all of us in the United Kingdom. I thank him for his words.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government?
Lisa Nandy
I have been pleased to meet the leadership at S4C after what has been a difficult time. This Government reaffirm the importance of S4C to our national life, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we start the charter review process to make sure that that continues.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Staff at the former BBC Monitoring station in Caversham in my constituency played a vital role over many years, monitoring broadcasts from around the world. Indeed, they broke a number of important news stories over the years, including that of the Iranian revolution, which was only possible because of the public service model and the dedication of the staff and their skills. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, but can I ask her to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the BBC for their continued work and for the BBC’s vital role as a public institution?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.
I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I echo the solidarity with BBC journalists that has been expressed across the House. Can the Secretary of State assure me and other Members that measures will be taken in the forthcoming charter review to ensure that all political appointments to the BBC board are made with full public scrutiny, and that such appointees will not be involved in any editorial capacity in future, in order to protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the most important bastion of public service broadcasting in Britain and beyond?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his words and Members across the House for the tone of this debate. I know that all Members feel strongly about the failings of the BBC editorial process in recent days, but it is a credit to this House that we can have a sensible and measured debate about the actions needed to address it.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady will have heard my comments to other hon. Members about the appointments process. The charter review offers this whole House the opportunity to look again at how those appointments are made and which roles exist.
On the hon. Lady’s points about the BBC and the environment in which it operates, the Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic, and therefore the inability of viewers to turn on their TV screens and understand what it is that they are watching. I have previously raised my concerns with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about politicians presenting news on programmes that are not necessarily deemed news programmes. As politicians, we are required to have an opinion and a point of view. That is very different from presenting impartial facts. The Government are looking to address that matter.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The BBC is unique and special, and it is ours. Yes, it is absolutely a part of the national conversation—but, importantly, it is also a part of the regional and local conversation. I have fantastic local journalists in my patch on Three Counties Radio and on “Look East”, and the fact is that a local story, which a local journalist has gone out to find, can quickly get on to the national stage because of our BBC; that is special. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the forthcoming charter review she will take seriously the protection and enhancement of local news coverage?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking both at the charter process and at how we can help to support and defend local news through the BBC’s work. She will also know that this Government are developing a local news strategy to help our local newspapers to survive and thrive in an era in which they face significant pressure. She is absolutely right to say that local news is not just about reflecting the whole nation, although it does play that essential role; it is also often the training ground for some of our most talented journalists, who would otherwise not get those opportunities, so we are determined to strengthen and protect it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would fight in the last ditch to prevent the BBC from ceasing to be a public service broadcaster and from being broken up. Any large organisation can have bad actors who behave unethically, and that has happened on this occasion, but it does the BBC no service when people parrot the line that the person responsible for this crisis is not the idiot who tampered with Donald Trump’s quote but a former Tory spin doctor, one of 13 members of the board, who allegedly influenced other members of the board to somehow provoke the present crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with Robbie Gibb; it has something to do with a mindset that, on the front page of today’s Guardian, has the whole thing about Robbie Gibb and relegates the fact that a $1 billion lawsuit may be taken out by Donald Trump against the BBC to a tiny paragraph at the end of the article on page 2. If you wants to know what is wrong with some bits of the BBC, read The Guardian today.
Lisa Nandy
I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is essential that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are upheld at all times. I am afraid that serious concerns have been raised about Sir Robbie Gibb’s conduct on the BBC board, including alleged attempts to influence recruitment and editorial decisions. If the Secretary of State cannot remove Gibbs from the board and cannot end the political appointments now, what actions can she take to restore public confidence in the BBC’s governance?
Lisa Nandy
Everyone in this House is right to take with the utmost seriousness the failings that the BBC has accepted have happened over the course of this year, but I would gently push back against the idea that the public has lost confidence in the BBC. It remains the most trusted source of news in this country and, as I said earlier, in many other parts of the world as well.
In terms of the actions that I can take as Secretary of State, I am working closely to support the chairman of the board through what are obviously tumultuous times. The director general has agreed to stay on in order to see the organisation through the transition. We have already had discussions about the process for recruiting for a new director general and the need to strengthen the work of the board and senior leadership when it comes to editorial oversight. That includes, as I said a moment ago, a discussion about the mix of skills and experience that is needed at the highest levels of the organisation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is absolutely right to hold the BBC to the highest standard, because that is the best way to defend our national broadcaster. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for Members of this House who are paid by the BBC’s commercial rivals—in fact, looking at the time, one of them is probably in make-up as we speak—to use their status as an MP to mount sustained and frenzied attacks that have only one aim: to destroy this national institution?
Lisa Nandy
As I said earlier, it is the legitimate, right and proper role of Members of this House to raise serious concerns about the decisions that have been made at the BBC over recent months and the response to them, but there is a difference between that and making a sustained attack on an institution that has stood at the centre of public life for over a century and belongs to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for her statement. It has been clear over the years that there has been a bias in the BBC, and I have had concerns over the last 12 months on at least four topics: BBC bias against Brexit; BBC bias against my party, the Democratic Unionist party—there are elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland who refuse to engage with the BBC; BBC bias for Gaza against Israel; and BBC bias against the free Iran Government in exile, with the BBC promoting the son of a former dictator. My goodness me, it is quite unbelievable. Two people have resigned, but the canker of editorial control is still there. So my question to the Secretary of State today is: when will it end? Is this just a pause or is this the end?
Lisa Nandy
As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?
Lisa Nandy
I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend about the centrality of the BBC to our public life. All of us in this House should rightly be seeking to ensure that the BBC upholds the highest standards while defending and protecting it as an institution and considering together how we can ensure that it stands at the centre of our public life for many more decades to come.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Government announce last week that they will tackle fake news in the curriculum. I always say to children when I go into schools that, “You can trust journalism if you can sue the person who wrote it,” so I actually welcome the writ coming from America, though I hope it can be sorted out, purely to say that if something is wrong, you can do that. The basis of why we are here today—forget all the politicking about who is on the board, what it is about Trump and anything else—is that the BBC faked a piece of news. We have to get to the heart of how that happened. May I ask that the Secretary of State use her offices to work with the current director general to get right to the heart of how this was ever allowed to happen? We have heard and all believe that the BBC is a respected journalistic organisation, but this is probably the biggest crisis it faces because right now we can honestly say that it faked the news.
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years?
Lisa Nandy
The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda?
Lisa Nandy
That is a question for the BBC, and when members of the editorial committee appear before the Select Committee, I am sure that that is something the Committee will rightly challenge them on.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Earlier this year, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the great privilege of visiting the 77th Brigade—the anti-Russian disinformation brigade of the British Army down in Newbury. The experts on the front line of the information wars told us that the British population are being subjected to tens of thousands of messages every single day designed to seed distrust between Government and citizen and break our belief in our institutions. The United Kingdom is in an incredibly privileged position in that we have a state broadcaster that provides us with something that might resemble a national culture. If we were to lose that, we would be feeding the forces that stand against us. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC provides a vital connection to our past that unifies us and that, as well as being a source of education, information and entertainment, it is also a great source of national resilience?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor?
Lisa Nandy
Perhaps I can hear my hon. Friend’s views about that over a few drinks later on.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.
I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In the early 2000s, I lived in Hanoi alongside my husband who was reporting on Vietnam for the BBC, and I saw for myself how he and the BBC worked very hard for truth. He then spent a year in Myanmar, working alongside extraordinarily brave local journalists who sought to expand public broadcasting under a military dictatorship. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC’s trusted journalism is one of our strongest defences against disinformation, both at home and abroad?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that BBC Verify does in helping to empower our citizens to navigate a difficult news environment.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
“Auntie” is definitively a monopoly. When Mr Reith wrote into the charter that she should inform, educate and entertain with complete impartiality, he did it for good reason. This recent disgusting episode with this “Panorama” programme, where we have undermined our relationship with probably our greatest ally, is just the tip of the iceberg. Would the Minister agree that now is the time to responsibly defund this monopoly? If she does not, would she agree that it is time for root-and-branch reform with a view to ensuring that, in the same way that she has done with football club boards, we see people from across the country who are actually forced to pay for this service represented on the board of the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I strongly disagree with him on the first point. On the latter point, the issue of accountability to the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised a moment ago, is something that we have been thinking about with the senior leadership of the BBC and others as we approach the charter review. I would certainly be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, we learned that the BBC upheld a complaint about presenter Martine Croxall. It is alleged that she changed—correctly —the wording of “pregnant people” to “women”. Somehow, the BBC found her eye-roll to have conveyed a personal view. There are two genders—male and female —and one of those genders can become pregnant: women. That is a scientific fact, and it is the view of the Supreme Court. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the BBC leadership abides by the Court’s ruling, and does she agree that the BBC’s lefty, woke agenda is certainly not in step with the majority of right-thinking people, who want common sense at the core of broadcasting?
Lisa Nandy
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the BBC. It is not for the Secretary of State to start writing editorial guidelines for the BBC on the Floor of the House of Commons, as I am sure most Members would agree. It is my job, however, to work with the senior leadership to ensure that it has the right structures and people in place, so that it can have well-thought-through, easily understood and consistent editorial guidelines of the highest standards that are applied consistently and do not leave presenters and journalists struggling to interpret them.