Media Green Paper

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

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

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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—

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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?

BBC Leadership

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Monday 20th October 2025 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 decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa.

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

Last week, Aston Villa released a statement that away fans would not be permitted to attend their game against Maccabi Tel Aviv on 6 November. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council on the advice of the safety advisory group, and based on a risk assessment by West Midlands police. That risk assessment considered a range of factors, such as the risk of protests, the threat of wider disorder, previous fixtures with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, and the impact on the wider community.

It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the police and safety advisory group are operationally independent of Government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety. However, this decision has far wider implications. In any situation, there is a risk that must be assessed, but in this case the inherent risk that the event presents is in no small part down to where the away fans come from and who they are. It is in that context that the solution that is proposed—to exclude a group from attending—is wrong. It chooses exclusion, rather than looking at the full range of options available to manage that risk and include.

This is about who we are as a country. A lot of the public discussion about this game has focused on events in the middle east. Let me be clear: it is perfectly legitimate to hold and express strong views about what is happening in Israel and Gaza. People in this country are free to protest peacefully; they are free to lobby Government and event organisers about which countries can participate in tournaments; and they are free to choose not to attend events or purchase products that they find unacceptable. However, they are not entitled to dictate who can participate in competitions, attend a football match, or walk the streets, for fear of threats or reprisals. Whatever one’s view on the events overseas, that is a fundamental principle that this Government will fiercely defend.

Let me also be clear that the decision was not made in a vacuum. It is set against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in this country and across the world, and of an attack on a synagogue in Manchester in which two innocent men were killed. It has a real-world impact on a community who already feel excluded and afraid. It is therefore completely legitimate to support the independence of the police to conduct that risk assessment, and to question the conclusion that follows when it excludes the people at the heart of that risk.

Following the decision last week, the Government have been working with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources are needed to manage the risks to ensure that fans from both teams can attend safely. If the assessment is revised, the safety advisory group will meet again to discuss options.

In the past few days, I have spoken to Jewish community groups, sporting organisations, fan groups and Aston Villa football club to ensure we have the fullest picture possible. The Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary have had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others. Ultimately, the law is clear that responsibility for this decision lies with local agencies. It is not for the Government to assess the risks surrounding this football match, but we are clear that resources will not be the determining factor in whether Maccabi Tel Aviv fans can be admitted. The fundamental principle that nobody in our country will be excluded from participating in public life because of who they are must be upheld.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments, because I am sure most of us in this House believe that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the upcoming Europa league game against Villa was the wrong one. It is also embarrassing and a disgrace. Have we really reached the point where we cannot welcome visitors from overseas to our second city, because we cannot guarantee their safety on British streets and in British football grounds? This is not how modern Britain should present itself to the world. Some, astoundingly including some in this House, have claimed that the ban on Israeli fans is for their own safety. That safety has been put at risk precisely because of the anger and hatred being whipped up by some of those very same people demanding a ban, such as by equating football fans with terrorists. We cannot give in to that kind of rhetoric, and I hope the Minister will join me in condemning it.

Football and all sport has incredible potential to bring people together. It should not be used as a deliberate tool to divide. The UK has a great and hard-won reputation for hosting major international sporting events, and banning an entire fanbase sends the wrong signal and may jeopardise our ability to host such events in the future. How disappointing this decision must be to the residents of Birmingham, who only three years ago welcomed people from around the world to the Commonwealth games, which showcased Birmingham and the west midlands at their diverse, vibrant and hospitable best. We therefore call on the Government to intervene and get this ban reversed.

Aston Villa and the safety advisory group may only be able to reverse the ban with guarantees of additional support from the Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm what additional resources may be provided and who will pay for them? Can she confirm when the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were first made aware of the intent of the safety advisory group to make this obviously controversial decision? Is she confident that they talked to all the right people before making the decision? If the decision is reversed, what practical steps will be taken to ensure the safety of all fans and residents? While many football teams have some undesirable supporters intent on causing trouble, let us recognise that the vast majority of fans want nothing more than to enjoy a good game of football.

Does the Minister agree that, if we are truly to wrap our arms around the Jewish community, as the Prime Minister promised following the attack on the synagogue in Manchester, we need to take action and not just spout warm words? Finally, is she confident that this incident will not jeopardise our ability to host major international sporting events in the future?

[Lisa Nandy]

First, may I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this urgent question to the House? I know the issue is of concern to so many parliamentarians and to so many people outside this place. I also thank him for his tone. I have watched with dismay as people in this debate have sought to use this moment to heighten tensions, and I commend him for how he has conducted himself.

The shadow Secretary of State asked a particularly important question about who will pay. Across Government, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Communities Secretary and I are united in saying that we will find the resources that need to be made available, once West Midlands police has come forward with the risk assessment. We will work as one Government to make sure that those resources are forthcoming, because of the important fundamental principle that is at stake about what sort of country we are.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was confident that the decision had been based on the right information. In recent days I have seen a great many “facts” flying around that do not seem to have any evidential basis, especially on social media, and we are working with our international partners to ensure that West Midlands police have the fullest range of information on which to base an assessment.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact that this is having on the Jewish community. I absolutely feel and understand that, and I have had numerous conversations with members of the Jewish community over the past few days. We have vast experience of policing events in difficult circumstances in this country, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the behaviour of a minority of supporters in every club, and in this club in particular, is reprehensible, but that is not true of all fans. What is astonishing in this case is that it is unprecedented in modern times for all away fans to be banned because of the behaviour of a small minority, and we are working with the police to help them to look at that in the round.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we need action, not just warm words. Having met Jewish fans, I am particularly concerned about the impact that some of the events in the middle east are having not just on national competitions, but on grassroots sport. I have committed myself to working with them on that, to ensure that young people in this country can turn up at local grassroots events and not feel anxious about participating, or not being able to participate, because of who they are.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the signal that this sends to others around the world. That is not lost on us. We are a tolerant, diverse nation, and Birmingham, as one of our great cities, is a great example. That is what we are fighting to uphold and defend, and that is the Britain in which we believe. The message from this Government is that we will always defend that country. We are a better country than some of the comments that have been made and the actions that have been taken in the last week, and we are determined to uphold that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Nigel Huddleston and Lisa Nandy

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

We all recognise the value of youth services, but the right hon. Lady will be well aware that many youth services, from mental health support to sport provision, are commissioned and then provided by charities, which are under quite severe financial pressures, yet incredibly charities were not exempt from Labour’s national insurance increases. Even children’s hospices were not. Why not? Is the Department engaging constructively with the Chancellor about the plight of children’s and youth charities? There is no point having a youth strategy if the Government are undermining the viability of the providers of the services.

[Lisa Nandy]

First of all, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his place and thank him for the very constructive way that he engaged with colleagues from across the House as Sports Minister, including me. I hope that is a model we can replicate.

I really do recognise the centrality of charities to everything we are trying to do as a country. The shadow Secretary of State will know that my background at the Centrepoint charity and then the Children’s Society was what led me into this place. On his specific issue, we have protected the smallest charities, which will be better off as a consequence of our reforms. We have also ensured that the majority will pay either the same or less. We do recognise the challenges, however, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society has been working through those issues with charities as part of our work with the civil society covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his role, and I thank the Secretary of State for her welcoming comments to me earlier. She is right: we have had many conversations in the past about many aspects of DCMS not being overtly party political, and that is a good thing.

However, there are areas of disagreement, including this Government’s anti-business attitude and policies. Increasing national insurance and business rates has caused untold damage to swathes of DCMS sectors. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? At the very least, can she assure me that she is begging and pleading with the Chancellor not to do any more damage to those sectors in the upcoming Budget?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for his warm words. However, it takes some brass neck to represent a political party in this Chamber that in recent memory crashed the economy and left working people across the country paying the price. The demand for charities soared as a direct result of the Conservatives’ policies, while the ability of charities to stand up and speak up for the people they represented was attacked and undermined at every turn by his Government. I can confirm that we will not be following Conservative policies. We will be proudly flying the flag for Labour policies, which put people and communities back at the heart of our country again.