Culture, Media And Sport

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport that forms the basis of today’s debate. I also thank everybody for their contributions today.

This important report has highlighted the concerning reality that England’s community and school sport system is not currently delivering either the opportunities that people want or the benefits that we know sport can provide. All too often, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the sectors it oversees are dismissed as “nice to haves” or a bit fluffy, when in fact they are pivotal—indeed, essential—to our economy and society. DCMS sectors—sport, culture, tourism, film, TV, music, heritage, civil society and much more—enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling, while supporting over 5 million jobs in the UK and generating well over £220DCMS’s total expenditure fell 3.3% from 2023-24. The Government have chosen to abolish the National Citizen Service, to undermine horseracing and legitimate gambling, and to cut spending on tourism promotion, on business events, on listed places of worship and even on school sport, while implementing policies that are loading up costs on DCMS sectors, especially through tax rises. The business rates and national insurance rises are decimating DCMS sectors, depriving tens of thousands of young people of their first job opportunity and causing unemployment. Of the nearly 200,000 job losses since Labour came to power, over half were in tourism and hospitality and many of them involved young people. I respect the Minister, and have a lot of time for her, and many of those things were not her Department’s decisions, and that must be intensely frustrating.

We all understand the benefits of an active population. When children are active from an early age, they develop confidence, resilience and social skills, and are more likely to enjoy better mental health, improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. If we fail to give every child the opportunity to be active, we risk storing up significant challenges for the future, from rising obesity and poorer mental health to greater pressure on our NHS. Allowing even more development on sports fields and playgrounds is clearly not going to help.

The evidence is clear that there is strong public demand for sport provision, but as the report highlights, fragmented policy, inadequate investment and poor cross-Government co-ordination are preventing sport from delivering its full potential—whether improving health outcomes, supporting children’s development, strengthening communities or contributing to economic growth. There is also a gender dimension to this issue, as the Chair of the Select Committee outlined and as a recent report by Sky demonstrated. Investment in sport delivers some of the clearest returns of any area of public spending: Sport England estimates that every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 in social and economic value.

The Government announced in January that they were investing £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the country as part of a £400 million boost for grassroots sport facilities by 2030. However, the £400 million figure is the same amount that we announced when we were in government, so thanks to inflation, it is a real-terms cut. There is also little detail on who will receive the money and when. Many sports governing bodies, including those for cricket, swimming and tennis, say that they have plenty of projects that are ready to go, but without clarity on funding, they cannot pull the trigger on key projects across the country.

I have particular concerns about school sport, where there has clearly been a bunfight between the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and DCMS about funding. The Government announced £1 billion for school sport over the next three years, but the devil is in the detail. The Department for Education announced that the £320 million annual PE and sport premium for primary schools will be scrapped in favour of a new partnership network. Let us be clear: that is a cut. In fact, it leaves schools around 22% less well off in terms of annual funding than the current scheme. As the report outlined, we need structural reform, sustained investment, clear accountability and a joined-up national strategy.

The Government have committed to publishing a national plan for physical activity later this year, and we look forward to scrutinising it. Sport and physical activity cannot solve every challenge facing young people, but they can be one of the most powerful tools for improving health, building confidence, developing skills and strengthening communities. Investment matters—of course it does—but we also need a long-term plan and structural reform. The Committee has provided Ministers with a road map; the challenge is whether the Government have the ambition to follow it.

Media Green Paper

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this urgent question to the House and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important advancement. Yesterday the Government published a Green Paper, “Watch this Space”, to set a new strategic direction for media policy in the UK. The way we consume broadcast media is changing, and television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved away from a system of traditional channels to a far more fragmented system in which people access TV on demand and on video-sharing platforms. Young people, in particular, are far more likely to access media on their phones and tablets through streaming services and platforms, and the Government believe that we are not adequately equipping that generation with access to high-quality media.

There are three key areas where we intend to act. The first is digital prominence, where we are exploring legislative options to require social media platforms and connected TV interfaces to make public service media content, particularly trusted news, highly visible and easy to discover. This is not about promoting Government narratives or only the BBC; it is about ensuring that brilliant journalism from many of our news publishers—both local and national—and broadcasters can get in front of the public. For that reason, we are also opening a conversation about how we define “public service broadcasting” in the modern age.

Secondly, the transition to internet TV is where we are outlining plans for a managed shift away from terrestrial broadcasting to internet-delivered IPTV. We know this is an essential switchover in terms of both access and cost, but we want to ensure that the transition is managed responsibly and that nobody is left behind. We are therefore consulting on two dates for the switchover: 2034, when current licences expire, or 2044, with any date contingent on a full and watertight transition plan.

Finally, we are protecting major sporting events. We will add on-demand and streaming rights for major sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympics to the listed events regime, protecting free universal fan access as viewing habits shift online.

Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that.

Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that?

We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out?

The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter?

Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, and I will do my best to answer them all as swiftly as I can. First, he rightly talks about the importance of getting the transition right and choosing the date of 2034 or 2044 well. He talks about the particular challenges in remote and rural areas, which this Government recognise. As he knows and as we have discussed before, there are also particular issues for older people, people with disabilities and others. We are working with the industry to put together a watertight plan to help people make that transition and ensure that nobody is left behind. We are asking these questions now precisely to make sure that we are ready and do not leave people behind.

On media literacy, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the onus cannot just be on media companies alone. There is a responsibility on all of us, including schools and those of us in public life, to make sure we are equipping our young people with the skills they need to be able to navigate a completely transformed media landscape from the one we had in this country when he and I were growing up. I want to reassure him that this is not about pushing all the responsibility on to media companies and letting everybody else off the hook. We all have to work together to achieve this. It is not just about young people, either. There are serious challenges with people from every generation seeing information online that is just simply false.

Who defines trustworthy news—who decides what is trustworthy news and how we decide what is trustworthy—is one of the most challenging aspects of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the definition of public service broadcasting is set out in law, but trustworthy news is a separate matter and that is precisely why we have asked the question.

I would gently push back on some of the narrative that the hon. Gentleman advanced about the BBC. It is still the most trustworthy source of news not just in this country but across the world. On Monday, I was on “Newsround” explaining the consultation and the social media ban that we are introducing to the generation of children who will be most affected by it. It strikes me that there is no other country in the world that has quality programming like that through their public service broadcaster, so I think we should be careful about not trashing the BBC. He and I have shared serious frustrations about some of the specific issues that he mentioned, and we should always demand the highest quality content, but I still firmly believe that the BBC is one of the best broadcasters in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Last year the BBC lost another 300,000 licence fee payers. The BBC’s current scale and financial model is clearly unsustainable. Yesterday the BBC announced controversial cuts, including “The World Tonight” and “Money Box Live”, without anyone in Parliament expressing a view. That is not right. The Government appear to be restricting parliamentary debate about the future of the BBC. They announced the BBC charter via written statement, not a debate. They have already ruled out some alternative funding models and consideration of the size, scope and scale of the BBC’s operations, leaving the BBC to take action unilaterally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the scope of the charter review, and ensure that Parliament has a proper say on the future of the BBC?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will try to reassure the hon. Member on that, because we have no intention of restricting debate on the future of the BBC. I share some of his concerns about the way in which the BBC made the recent announcement. One of the things that I was keen to ensure was that decisions that could affect the future of the BBC, and the services on which we all rely, were made by the new director general and not in the interim, in the absence of a permanent director general. The charter process sets out a clear role for Parliament, which this Government will respect and uphold. There will be adequate opportunity to debate the proposals that the Government put forward with the White Paper on the future of the BBC later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s introductory comments and congratulate England and Scotland on a great start to the world cup.

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

[Lisa Nandy]

One thing I learned at school was that the answer to a multiple choice question is usually option (c). The hon. Member missed option (c) out, because the real answer to “Who is to blame for the situation this country is in?” is him and his colleagues, because of the appalling mess they made over 14 years of Conservative government. They cut our armed forces to a size that has not been seen for generations, they refused to treat our veterans with respect, they crashed the economy and they left working-class people in every nation and region paying a very heavy price.

We are investing: we have announced the biggest uplift to arts funding, in a single Parliament, in history; we are investing additional resources in young people to turn around the life chances of a generation; and we have invested more than £1 billion in school sport, which the hon. Member’s Government squandered. He should be ashamed of himself—

Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas.

The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events.

The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games.

For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on.

Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one.

We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future.

As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world.

Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster.

As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too.

Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous.

We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

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

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the tourism industry. I recognise that it has had significant pressures in recent years, particularly with the pandemic, but I am proud of our tourism industry; it is second to none and delivering in every part of the country. We have put the tourism industry at the centre of our attention with the visitor economy growth strategy. We see it as an area of great potential, and the tourism Minister is working closely with the industry to unlock the benefits for the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

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

[Lisa Nandy]

In a rare moment of agreement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the gambling industry brings joy to a lot of people. He and I have discussed the harms that affect a minority of people. They are significant and important, but the industry as a whole brings positive benefits to the United Kingdom. I think he is underplaying the significant pressures on high street businesses that have existed over the last couple of decades—something that, frankly, his Government did absolutely nothing about over the 14 years that they were in government. We are dealing with those.

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 General Committees

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular.

The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week.

The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills.

Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all.

Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike.

In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church.

That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power.

To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued.

Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000.

Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who?

We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

As mentioned by the Secretary of State, this week’s BAFTA awards—a great celebration of British creativity—were marred by the unnecessary airing of involuntary comments by Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson. It appears a microphone was placed close to John, and some offensive comments were aired, despite a two-hour delay. This no doubt well-intended attempt at inclusivity has caused great anxiety to John and great offence to many others. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC and BAFTA must not only investigate this matter but apologise?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for raising this and to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know has raised her concerns directly with the BBC as well. The shadow Secretary of State heard what I said a moment ago. I think it is fair to say that this Government and I were not satisfied with the initial response from the BBC, and we need to see much swifter action taken in these instances and action that results in this not happening again; I think we are all deeply concerned that there have been too many incidents of this kind.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the sensitive way in which he raised this. We all want to make sure that the BAFTAs and all our award ceremonies are inclusive places where people with Tourette’s, who have been shut out of society for too long, can be fully included. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), met BAFTA this week to talk about how we exercise a better duty of care to all concerned.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. When the Labour Government cut the budget for the listed places of worship scheme, it was suggested that we should not worry because it never runs out of money. Well, it has now run out of money. As the details for a new scheme have not yet been announced, uncertainty is growing, and vital repair work is being postponed or cancelled altogether. Will the Government follow the Conservative lead and commit to fully restoring the budget for the listed places of worship scheme and to releasing information about the new scheme as a matter of urgency?

[Lisa Nandy]

The shadow Secretary of State knows that this is important to this Government. These incredible buildings and places of worship stand at the centre of our communities, and it matters deeply that we preserve and protect them. But he will also know that there were serious challenges with the previous scheme, including the fact that his Government left the economy in such a parlous state that there was no funding available going forward, despite their commitments. We have committed to a new scheme that ensures we can get funding to not just those places that can already raise the money for their own buildings but those places where money is in short supply. We are designing that scheme and will bring forward details of it shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

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

[Lisa Nandy]

The shadow Secretary of State will be aware that the Department for Business and Trade has been consulting on this issue, which is significant for many organisations, and the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts held a roundtable about it recently. The Minister for Sport, Tourism, Civil Society and Youth is meeting the relevant DBT Minister shortly to discuss it, and the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), will also be joining that meeting. We would be delighted to extend an invitation to the shadow Secretary of State so that we can resolve this serious issue together.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response and I appreciate the tone that she has adopted.

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

[Lisa Nandy]

Given the chilling effect that this has had on the Jewish community in particular, and on everybody who needs to have trust in our police services across the country, I want to be crystal clear on this point. I have looked into the concerns that the shadow Secretary of State has raised about whether DMCS officials were aware of the decision in advance. We were working on the instruction that the match was still supposed to go ahead. That was on the basis of advice from the SAG. I would be happy to outline that in further detail to him. It is absolutely not correct to say that DCMS officials were made aware that a ban was going to take place. I have to say to him, on a personal level, that if that had been the case, I would make sure that people were held accountable for it.

On the wider issue of what has unfolded over recent days, I want to reiterate that having watched West Midlands police contradict me, the Government and its own evidence in public over recent months, and having seen all that laid bare in a report that the Home Secretary brought to the House yesterday, I believe it is astonishing that the chief constable remains in post. I hope that he will seriously reflect on his position.

BBC Charter Renewal

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate about a topic that he is extremely knowledgeable about. I thank the Minister for being here today; although this important topic is not currently part of her brief, she is also very knowledgeable about it.

The future of the BBC is an important matter for its employees, licence fee payers and people who consume its output in this country and around the world, including many—although a declining number—of our constituents. The BBC is a cherished institution, and it is the UK’s most widely used news outlet: 94% of UK adults use BBC services every month on average. It has informed, educated and entertained generations of Brits. It is one of our most admired and respected institutions, and one of our biggest global brands. However, the BBC faces considerable challenges in the digital age, and an increasingly fragmented media landscape. Recently, it has faced other challenges to its reputation—some, admittedly, of its own making.

Before Christmas, the Government released their long-awaited Green Paper as part of the process to review the royal charter. Sadly, they did so in a written ministerial statement rather than on the Floor of the House, so today is the first time we have had the opportunity to discuss this matter properly. The BBC’s existence and the licence fee arrangements are contingent on the BBC fulfilling its licence obligations—including those on impartiality, as outlined in the charter.

Recently, there have been too many examples where the BBC has not been following its own editorial guidelines on impartiality—from push notifications to its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict to trans issues, as well as the high-profile doctoring of a speech by the President of the United States, which has led to a multibillion dollar lawsuit. That lawsuit threatens the future financial stability of the BBC and could lead to resources being diverted away from important and much-loved programming, such as children’s TV, natural history series, sport and national events coverage, music and local radio. Many of those things have been mentioned today; they are what that the BBC does so well, and they help justify the licence fee and sustain the BBC’s brand and reputation around the world.

Abiding by impartiality is an important aspect of the current debate because, as the BBC’s own editorial guidelines clearly state,

“Audiences expect the BBC's news and current affairs and factual journalism output to meet the highest levels of impartiality and accuracy.”

I could not agree more, which is why the accusations of failure to uphold impartiality are so serious. There is also another important aspect of the debate around impartiality. The editorial guidelines make it clear that

“There is no requirement to give all views equal weight…Minority views or those less supported by evidence, do not need to be given similar prominence or weight to those with more support, to the prevailing consensus, or to those better evidenced.”

That begs these questions: why can the BBC not bring itself to call Hamas a terrorist organisation? Why did it feel obliged to reprimand a journalist for saying “women” instead of “pregnant people” live on air? Impartiality should not be used as an excuse to push minority or woke views that are not supported by the majority of the British population. Common sense must prevail.

This whole area clearly needs a lot of tidying up, and the charter review offers an opportunity to do so. Does the Minister agree that the governance structures, processes and procedures around compliance with, and enforcement of, impartiality and editorial guidelines must be a key focus in the charter review process? Does she agree that the BBC should not wait, and that it can, of its own volition, take action now to change its procedures and overall culture on compliance in advance of the conclusion of the charter review process?

The Green Paper rightly focuses on the issues of trust—mentioned many times today—public good, driving economic growth and funding. As has been pointed out by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), and others, not every option has been considered. It is right that we should take a thorough review of all future funding options for the BBC, because all options, including the status quo, will have a knock-on impact on other public service broadcasters, and on the production and broadcasting ecosystem across the UK as a whole, including radio as well as TV.

The licence fee model, in its current form, is clearly not sustainable, partly because people are walking away from the BBC already and taking their money with them—a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. Since 2019, more than 2 million households have stopped paying the licence fee, and in the past decade licence fee evasion has doubled. At the same time, the BBC has fallen behind innovative rivals when it comes to young people. Additional sources of funding for the BBC must be found, without jeopardising the rest of the UK broadcasting landscape and without distorting the rest of the UK advertising market.

Does the Minister agree that the charter renewal discussion also needs to focus on how the BBC can further exploit commercial opportunities, particularly with its back catalogue and revenue from overseas? Does the Minister agree that we must also debate the other side of the equation: the size, scale and scope of the BBC, or what exactly its public service content duties should be? That point seems to be missing from the Green Paper, but it was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon.

The consultation also suggests that consideration be given to reduced or free licence fees for people on benefits. That does concern us. It would be outrageous if people claiming benefits were given free TV licences while hard-working people footed the bill.

Turning briefly to comments made by other hon. Members, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon expressed his thanks to the outgoing director general, Tim Davie, and I also put on record my thanks for his service. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport expressed concerns that some funding options had already been ruled out; again, that is a matter of concern, and I hope the Minister can address that in a moment. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) pointed out the concerning reality that licence fee penalties often disproportionately impact women.

The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out the very important role of the World Service, which is of course partly funded by the FCDO and not entirely by the licence fee. The hon. Member for Salford also highlighted the transformational impact of the BBC’s significant investment in Salford—something I had the pleasure of seeing in December.

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) highlighted the important role of the national broadcaster in the age of misinformation, and the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted accountability. Of course, something that we have not talked about much today, but which I am sure will be a matter of considerable debate going forward, is the role of the regulator, Ofcom.

In conclusion, we want the BBC to succeed. To do so, it must be the best version of itself. That may be perhaps quite a significantly different version from what exists today. We look forward to working constructively with the BBC, the Government and all stakeholders in this charter review process. I encourage all interested parties, including our constituents, to get involved in the consultation process. Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that there are more opportunities in the future to debate this vital topic—the future of the BBC —in Government time, on the Floor of the House, and not just via written statements?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Happy Lancashire Day, Mr Speaker. May I join the Secretary of State in expressing congratulations to Scotland?

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

[Mr Speaker]

It is topicals. Come on.

[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?