Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Russell Brand has now been jailed for rape and sexual assault. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with his victims, and I welcome the strong and powerful words of the Secretary of State just now. The BBC’s review into how complaints about Russell Brand’s behaviour were handled found that of eight complaints, only one was formally made at the time, and it was not dealt with effectively. It concludes that individuals felt “unable” to raise issues, believing

“that Russell Brand would always get his way,”

and so they stayed silent. Oscar-winning producer Lucie Kon has also shared her experience with the BBC after reporting antisemitic behaviour, and has raised concerns about the complaints process. In light of those harrowing stories, what discussions is the Secretary of State having with the BBC as part of the charter renewal to ensure that we see more effective investigation of serious workplace complaints, and a zero-tolerance approach to misconduct going forward?

[Lisa Nandy]

I absolutely accept that there is an important leadership role for the BBC in relation to this issue, but I would hate for us to forget that there were also a number of entertainment, media and publishing organisations where concerns raised about Russell Brand’s behaviour were simply not acted on. That is why I am bringing together representatives from across those different industries, to ensure that we draw a line in the sand and take action that is long overdue.

The hon. Lady asked about the BBC in particular, and she is right to say that significant problems were uncovered at the BBC. I am deeply frustrated that we have had so many reviews: the Dame Janet Smith review into Jimmy Savile; the review into the conduct of Huw Edwards; and reviews into the conduct of Tim Westwood. If we put those reviews next to each other and look at the recommendations, we see that they are the same recommendations over and over again. I will not accept that we cannot get our act together and ensure that our public service broadcaster, of which this country is rightly very proud, upholds better standards and processes than we have seen to date.

[Rebecca Paul]

Next year marks 1,100 years since Æthelstan united England and began the glorious national story that we are still telling to this day. It is an occasion worthy of celebration and recognition, yet when the Government were asked how they intended to mark it, the answer was that there are no plans. This important anniversary should be a moment of national joy that brings communities together, and a milestone marked by commemorative coins and stamps, special lessons in schools, Æthelstan on Trafalgar Square’s fourth plinth, and perhaps even a visit by His Majesty to this Parliament. Will the Secretary of State reconsider celebrating the 1,100th anniversary of England’s birth, and share with the House any such plans in due course?

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 4th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.

As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.

The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.

Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.

Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.

We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.

Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.

I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.

At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.

What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.

Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.

In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.

Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?

Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.

Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:

“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”

Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.

What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.

The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same. 

I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.

This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.

In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?

I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.

For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.

Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.

With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Ofcom

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing today’s debate. This is a really important topic, and it is clear how passionate she is about it. I really enjoyed her speech and I would love to see her on GB News, creating some of the balance that she was talking about. In fact, a number of Members here would contribute to that important balance, so I look forward to seeing them all on there at some point.

Before I get into some of the detail that has been raised today in compelling contributions, it is important to recognise Ofcom’s extraordinarily broad remit. From broadcasting and telecommunications to postal services and online safety, it regulates communication services that impact British consumers every day. Independent regulation in all those spheres is important. It is right that we should take this opportunity to consider whether Ofcom is delivering on its statutory duties and is well placed to take on the additional responsibilities allocated to it, particularly given how important they are. Across Ofcom’s considerable remit, we often hear the same concerns: the regulator is too slow to act, too reluctant to intervene and too often unable to secure meaningful improvements. We have heard that across the board today.

Broadcasting is the area of regulation that Ofcom is best known for. Ofcom’s broadcasting code requires that news be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality, and significant mistakes should normally be acknowledged and corrected promptly. It also makes it clear that, save in exceptional circumstances, politicians must not act as newsreaders, interviewers or reporters in news programmes. Those are important safeguards. The public should be able to trust that the news on their screens is being reported accurately and without editorial bias.

That said, there is a really important nuance: “due impartiality” was never intended to mean the rigid allocation of equal airtime for every point of view. Ofcom’s rules recognise different programme formats and the importance of context. The exchange of different opinions and political views is both legitimate and healthy when done in line with the code. But rather unsurprisingly, Ofcom finds itself walking a fine line. The regulator must be robust when rules are broken, but without becoming so restrictive that broadcasters shy away from difficult subjects or controversial opinions, and those rules must always be applied consistently, regardless of a broadcaster’s political outlook. The perception that the rules are enforced inconsistently can be as damaging to public confidence as a lack of enforcement.

Ofcom says that it closed nearly 66,000 broadcasting complaints last year and found breaches in 14 cases, following 25 investigations. Those figures demonstrate activity, but tell us much less about whether the final decisions were fair or effective. Interestingly, I can find no record of Ofcom issuing fines where politicians have been involved in reading the news, despite the code’s clear position on that and some high-profile examples. I therefore ask the Minister, bearing in mind the regulator’s operational independence, whether the Government are satisfied with its regulatory performance in respect of broadcast. Are they satisfied that Ofcom, in performing its duties, strikes the right balance between impartiality, accuracy and freedom of expression?

I turn now to online safety. Ofcom’s responsibilities are growing rapidly, particularly when it comes to protecting children from online harms. That is an immensely important area. We will all be aware that Ofcom has reported under section 63 of the Online Safety Act 2023 that it found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful content during the first nine months after the new children’s safety duties took effect. This is an early measure, and we know that some platforms have introduced stronger age checks since; none the less, that initial report is disappointing and concerning. I hope the Minister will update us today on her view on the recommendations in the report and what further actions the Government are considering, if any.

Enforcement in the online sphere can be incredibly challenging. Giving evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee earlier this month, Ofcom’s chief executive said that only two out of 11 online safety fines had been paid. In the case of 4chan, it was fined £520,000 in March for breaches, including failing to introduce effective age checks to stop children accessing pornography. Its US lawyer responded to demands for payment with an image of an AI-generated hamster. Unfortunately, that example shows how difficult it can be to enforce against overseas entities, putting Ofcom in an extremely difficult position. I would be grateful if the Minister gave her views on the type of enforcement action that should be taken in these difficult cases, such as last-resort business disruption powers, and whether she would like to see those powers used more.

Let me turn to social media restrictions for under-16s, an area where the Government have done the right thing, albeit belatedly and following huge pressure from the Opposition and the public. Ofcom is expected to oversee compliance here and has acknowledged the challenges posed by circumvention, including through VPNs, and told the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee that it will need additional resources for the task. I hope the Minister can respond to that directly by outlining what assessment the Government have made of Ofcom’s staffing, technical expertise and current enforcement capacity. What lessons are being learned from Ofcom’s work on existing online safety duties, and what measurable outcomes will the House be able to refer to in 12 months from now to ultimately judge how effectively Ofcom has discharged this important new function?

I mentioned Ofcom’s extremely broad remit at the outset, and it would be entirely remiss of me, in my capacity as the Member for Reigate, not to acknowledge its responsibility as the regulator for postal deliveries. Royal Mail is ultimately responsible for running its network, but it is painfully clear to my constituents that repeated fines from Ofcom have done very little to secure the reliable service that we should all expect. I recall a Government Member decrying Ofcom as “utterly toothless” on postal services when we considered this issue earlier in the year. He is certainly not alone in taking that view, as we have heard many times over in Members’ contributions today. When the Minister speaks, I hope we will hear about how we can ensure that sanctions from Ofcom meaningfully translate into more letters arriving on time. Otherwise, really, what is the point?

Before I finish, I want to draw attention to the Public Accounts Committee report of 11 September, which identified the critical role that regulators such as Ofcom play in ensuring that vulnerable customers and those struggling financially are better supported. Its report specifically recommends that regulators need to do more to ensure take-up of discounted social tariffs and other support for consumers on lower incomes. Fewer than 9% of eligible broadband customers are on social tariffs and only a third of customers are aware that they even exist. More urgency from Ofcom could create scope for a more joined-up approach that would avoid customers in vulnerable circumstances having to repeat personal information to multiple service providers. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts about the recommendations in that report.

That final point brings me back to the purpose of today’s debate. Whether it is ensuring impartial news, children’s safety online, reliable postal deliveries or affordable broadband, Ofcom’s effectiveness has real consequences for the people we represent. Its operational independence is important, but that independence must go hand in hand with accountability. As we continue to expand the regulator’s responsibilities, I hope that the Minister can explain how the Government can measure its success and what more can be done to ensure that Ofcom delivers the improvements that the public rightly expect.

Online Safety

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is heartening that she so clearly recognises the seriousness and urgency of the child safety issue before us. I welcome the spirit of today’s statement in two capacities: as shadow Secretary of State and as a mother. Every parent wants to know that, when their child inevitably picks up a phone, they have done everything reasonably possible to protect them from exploitation, abuse and harmful content.

We should take a moment to remember children such as 16-year-old Murray Dowey, who took his own life just hours after being tricked into sending an intimate image online. No young person should ever be put in that position, and no family should ever have to endure such a tragedy. I therefore welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on device-level protections, particularly the commitment that children will be prevented from taking or sharing nude images on their devices. That is a huge practical step, which has the potential to prevent immeasurable harm.

I remember raising device-level protection from the Back Benches before summer recess, so I am pleased that this work is being pursued. But although the good intent is clear, the execution is often more challenging, so I would welcome more detail on the Secretary of State’s plans, including on what exactly can be done to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility in this space.

Before recess, the Government set technology companies a clear three-month deadline. Ministers said that if sufficient progress was not made, they would act. The Secretary of State’s assessment today is that progress has not been good enough, so the House now needs to know exactly what will happen next. We have heard a commitment to primary legislation, but “as soon as we can” is not yet a timetable. When does the Secretary of State expect to introduce the legislation? She has also said that the Government may reassess whether legislation is necessary if companies make sufficient progress in the meantime. What precisely would constitute sufficient progress and who will make that judgment?

I would welcome clarity on the devices themselves. Is the aim for these planned protections to apply only to new phones and tablets, or will companies be expected, wherever technically possible, to push them through software updates to devices already in use? Millions of phones are in young hands at this very moment. Protecting only the next generation of devices would leave a large gap. Where older devices cannot support these measures, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the scale of that problem?

The Secretary of State also said today that

“there is a central role for Government in shaping…technology for good”.

It is a very broad proposition, and I hope that she can reassure the House about exactly what she means by it. The Opposition want to see device-level protection and support further exploration, but it is just one part of a far larger picture. I pay tribute to the shadow Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who has led the charge by the Conservatives for stronger online protections for children. As His Majesty’s Opposition, we have relentlessly pushed for restrictions on social media for under-16s. To be frank, the Government got to the right place in the end, but we did have to drag them kicking and screaming. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that the under-16s social media restrictions remain on course for early 2027, and that the necessary age assurance and enforcement arrangements will be ready in time?

There is considerable common ground across this House. We want parents to be more empowered, children to have stronger protections, and technology companies to take responsibility for the content they display to young people. I look forward to working constructively across the House with the Secretary of State and the Ministers towards these worthy goals.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for the way that she has engaged with these proposals. I will try my best to briefly answer as many of her questions as possible. First, on the detail, I have instructed my officials today to begin working up legislation. I appreciate that it is frustrating when a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says, “We intend to do this imminently”—the hon. Lady’s party has been in government; they understand the difficulties—but I want to reassure her and the whole House that we intend to do this without delay. The only reason there is not a firm timetable at the moment is because we are the first country in the world to do it. There are a number of questions, some of which she posed, which we need to iron out to ensure that we get this right.

On what would constitute sufficient progress that would rid us of the need to introduce legislation, I would much rather the technology companies move at pace to meet their own social and moral obligations, but in the absence of that, the Government will step up and act. Frankly, if we were able to reach a situation very quickly, which we should be able to do with the right will, where children were not able to take or share nude images, then the problem would be solved. But I have to say, based on what I have seen in progress over the last three months, it is almost certain that we will be legislating in this area.

The hon. Lady asked about which devices. It is phones and tablets at a minimum, but I accept the point she makes, and we are exploring whether it is possible to extend this to other forms of technology.

The hon. Lady asked what I meant when I talked about shaping technology for good. I am a big supporter of the action we are taking on social media for children. I say this as the mum of an 11-year-old and someone who is going through it at the moment and trying to help navigate that; I know all parents across the House will recognise the challenges. I would love us to get to a situation as a country where all people, including children, can be online and find good, trusted information and things that help them to be creative, to feel empowered and to enable them to live the richer, larger lives that they want to live. I think the Government have a right and proper role in helping that to happen. One of the ways in which we are already doing that, building on the great work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), is in trying to use gov.uk as a pioneering service that really does help people to live better lives.

The hon. Lady says that this Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing this. Her party was in government for a very long time, and the amount of time it took them to try to introduce any legislation in this area at all was quite shameful. That is not to downplay the role that some members of the Conservative party played in ensuring that we got there, but if it was not for my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West, I do not think I would be standing here today in a position to make this announcement. We should give credit where credit is due: this is a Government who are leading the world in keeping children safe.

The last thing the hon. Lady asked me about, which I know many colleagues are concerned about, is the social media ban that we announced earlier this year. I can reassure the House that we do intend to stick to both the spirit and the letter of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West set out earlier this year. We are on track to meet the timetable that she set out, to lay the first regulations by the end of this year and for the ban to come into force in the spring of 2027. We also intend to go somewhat further than our initial proposition statement, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk with the hon. Lady in more detail about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Celebrating culture as a community can be an incredibly unifying experience, and many people will have enjoyed Notting Hill carnival this weekend, but 636 people were arrested for crimes including sexual offences and possession of weapons. Last year, it cost about £16 million just to police the carnival, and this year a further £4.6 million of taxpayers’ money was provided for additional safety measures. Given those figures, are the Minister and the Secretary of State satisfied that this particular cultural event represents good value for taxpayers? What discussions is the Secretary of State having with colleagues about whether the present approach is sustainable?

[Ian Murray]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her position and welcome her to her place. I look forward to the many discussions the ministerial team will have with her shadow ministerial team. I am sure that she will do a marvellous job.

It was the 60th anniversary of Notting Hill carnival. Everyone is concerned about the 636 arrests. It is a carnival that has been enjoyed by tens of millions of people over the past 60 years. Its policing is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and we will work closely with the Mayor of London on what will happen over the next 60 years of the Notting Hill carnival. It is something that we should celebrate and enjoy, but that has to be done safely, without discrimination for anyone and without fear or favour for anyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her warm words. I am looking forward to working constructively with her and her team.

May I begin by paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in a horrific head-on collision on the A66 last month? The car that collided with them was travelling in the wrong direction. My thoughts are with their families and friends at this terrible, terrible time. Their deaths have renewed concern about videos on TikTok and other platforms that glorify dangerous driving and police chases. The behaviour these videos encourage can have fatal consequences. We know the Government recently raised this issue with social media companies, yet the content remains up. What more will the Minister and the Secretary of State do to ensure that TikTok and other platforms crack down on that before more lives are lost?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, first of all, to pay tribute to those incredible police officers who lost their lives. May I associate myself with her remarks and put on record my sadness, love and sympathy to their families and loved ones? I agree with her that there is more that must be done to tackle what is becoming an epidemic in young people in particular using social media to encourage dangerous behaviour. I have a meeting set up with TikTok in the coming days. We have obviously been in close discussion with it and other social media companies since that tragic, appalling incident, but there is more that we as a Government intend to do and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss that further.

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Sport occupies a special place in this country. We all know the power that it has to bring communities together, inspire millions of people to take part, and provide some of those increasingly rare occasions when the whole country seems to stop and watch the same thing. Britain can also take enormous pride in its place in the sporting world. There is no doubt that we excel across the board, and the patriotism that such events can generate is truly wonderful.

We are home to Wimbledon, the Open, the British Grand Prix and the London marathon. We have successfully hosted Olympic and Paralympic games, Commonwealth games, world cups and European championships—and we do it exceptionally well. Those events are part of our national culture. They create memories that last for generations, inspire children to pick up a racket, a football or a pair of running shoes, and showcase the very best of Britain to audiences around the world.

By way of example, take the London Olympics and Paralympics, which the Secretary of State has just mentioned—we obviously share some similar memories. I think it is fair to say that, before it started, there was a bit of grumbling about the disruption, cost, impact and even the logo, as some Members may remember. But once it started, the overwhelming pride that we all felt in our home nation, our capital and our sportsmen and women was something that I am sure none of us will forget. It was a truly momentous, once-in-a-lifetime event that made me so proud to be British. Those of us—including me—who worked in London at that time, certainly enjoyed the instruction to try to work at home during that busy period.

These big sporting events are not only sources of pride and joy for millions. Taken as a whole, sport is also a roaring economic engine. The Government’s latest estimates suggest that the wider sport sector directly contributed £63.2 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and accounted for 1.3 million jobs.

Major sporting events alone can generate considerable returns for our country. In 2023, investment of £10.8 million from UK Sport and Government supported 16 major sporting events, which generated an estimated £373 million for our economy. The Birmingham Commonwealth games is a particularly striking example, with research finding that the games contributed almost £1.2 billion to the overall UK economy, as well as nearly £80 million in social value.

Those are very substantial numbers. They represent money being spent in hotels, restaurants and pubs, business for suppliers, employment in event management, broadcasting and security, and visitors coming to parts of the country they might otherwise never have visited.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On the point about economic benefit, I am the Member of Parliament for Silverstone, and the grand prix has given a huge boost to the economy in our area; it is vital part of our economy, but it is on the annual calendar only because of the hard work of the team to keep it there; there is no guarantee that we will have it every year. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s looking at widening the definition of “major events” to capture Silverstone, because it is so valuable to our sporting calendar; it is absolutely vital.

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She is passionate about Silverstone, and she is absolutely right in all the points she makes. We must never be complacent about it; we must strengthen and build on all the great sporting events that we have in this country.

Sport also strengthens Britain’s reputation overseas. Few countries combine our extraordinary sporting heritage, wonderful venues, broadcasting expertise, enthusiastic crowds and experience of putting on major events that the whole world wants to see. It is therefore very much in our national interest to ensure that the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world to host these big events.

That is the context in which the Opposition approach the Bill. We support its underlying objective and will support its Second Reading. It absolutely makes sense, and it is in this country’s interests, to create a standing legislative framework of this kind.

When the United Kingdom bids to host a major international sporting event, the governing body will commonly require host country guarantees covering matters such as ticketing, commercial rights, advertising and transport. Historically, Parliament has often had to legislate specifically for individual events. There is an obvious inefficiency in recreating substantially similar provisions every time Britain secures another major tournament. If we know that certain protections are repeatedly required, it is reasonable to place a common framework on the statute book that can be tailored to the needs of individual events. This should make Britain a more competitive prospective host and give international sporting organisations greater confidence that the protections they require will be available.

That confidence is vital, as international competition to host major sport is fierce. Countries across the world understand the prestige that these events bring, the visitors they attract and the economic activity they generate. We cannot simply assume that Britain will continue to win the rights to host them if we become less accommodating than our competitors. We need to make the strongest possible case for the UK, and part of that is demonstrating that when we make commitments as a host nation, we have the legal framework to deliver them quickly and effectively.

With that objective in mind, there is much in the detail of the Bill’s proposed framework that we support. It is right that organisers should have effective tools to prevent professional ticket touts from exploiting supporters; it is right that genuine sponsors, who may invest very significant sums in making an event possible, should receive reasonable protection against businesses falsely passing themselves off as official partners; and it is plainly sensible to have the capacity to make temporary transport and traffic arrangements when hundreds of thousands of additional spectators may be moving around a city or region.

[James Naish]

The Secretary of State moved on from this quickly earlier. I wanted to talk specifically about transport arrangements, as in my constituency, we have three international venues in very close proximity, and it can be extremely difficult for the residents who live in that area. Would the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that local councils have the power to enforce the transport plans that are put in place, so that the residents in the areas hosting these major sporting events can live alongside those venues?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is really important that we explore this in more detail in Committee. This obviously requires a bit of balance. We need to consider both sides of the matter to get to the right place. This is a great starting position, and hopefully we will have a lot more detailed discussions as the Bill moves through the House, assuming it passes Second Reading, which it looks likely to do.

We are not concerned about the concept of the Bill, and colleagues in the other place approached it in exactly the same spirit: they supported the principle, while working constructively to improve the legislation. I want to acknowledge the important work undertaken in the other place to ensure that the framework is of benefit to not only major one-off international tournaments, but the great recurring sporting events already woven into British national life, which the Culture Secretary mentioned. As originally drafted, the Bill risked producing the rather peculiar result that an international tournament visiting Britain for the first time might qualify for these protections, while Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix might not. That was a significant gap, and Opposition peers, including Baroness Evans and Lord Parkinson, worked closely with colleagues across the House, and with the sporting sector, to address it.

The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the London marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics were among those supporting a widening of the framework to include repeat events. These great recurring events are not simply fixtures in our sporting calendar, but strategic national assets. They attract international audiences, support thousands of jobs, generate significant economic value and serve to showcase Britain around the world. We should therefore always seek to maximise the opportunities and returns that they bring.

As originally drafted, the Bill was principally aimed at major one-off or infrequent international events, but amendments made in the Lords widened that framework, so that our great recurring UK sporting events of national or international importance, such as Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix, can also ask to benefit from its protections. That does not mean that every protection in the Bill will now automatically apply to every one of those events every year, but where a major recurring event can demonstrate a genuine need for one or more parts of the framework, it can ask the Government to apply them. Ministers must then agree, and any use of the framework will remain subject to parliamentary approval. Baroness Evans put the principle neatly when she described the Lords’ approach as providing opportunity, not obligation. It is a sensible and proportionate approach, and I welcome the assurances that have been given that the final legislation will deliver that objective and allow our great recurring events to benefit from the framework.

I understand that there may be some technical tidying required as the Bill proceeds through this House, and we will engage constructively with the Government on that work to ensure that the Bill does what is intended. The sporting sector has worked hard to secure this change. I was hopeful that the Culture Secretary could reassure the House today that the Government remain committed to delivering it in full and to preserving the substance of what was achieved in the Lords, and I believe we have heard that from her today. I thank her for that.

There are inevitably some further areas that we will want to examine as the Bill enters Committee stage. That is not because we oppose the powers themselves, but because a permanent legislative framework needs to strike the right balance between giving organisers the protections they require and avoiding unnecessary burdens on those affected.

The first such area is the impact on existing businesses. One of the central reasons why we want major sporting events in Britain is the economic activity that they generate. We want visitors filling hotels, restaurants and pubs, we want local businesses benefiting from increased footfall, and we want traders to share in the opportunities created when tens or hundreds of thousands of people arrive in an area. There will plainly be occasions when crowd safety, security or legitimate commercial arrangements mean that some restrictions are necessary, but the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that a substantial proportion of street traders in affected areas may be unable to trade while restrictions operate. Colleagues in the other place pressed Ministers on that point and secured a useful change, requiring existing trading licences to be taken into account. The Government also committed to work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative arrangements when an existing trader cannot remain in their usual location. In Committee, we will want to ensure that the practical arrangements around notice, authorisations and treatment of existing businesses are fair and proportionate.

The same principle applies to advertising. We support action against genuine ambush marketing. Official sponsors make substantial investments in major sport and are entitled to protection. At the same time, the framework should operate sensibly for existing advertisers and should distinguish between falsely claiming an official association with an event and legitimate commercial activity, such as a company truthfully promoting an athlete whom it genuinely sponsors.

In the Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay raised the concerns of the Advertising Association. The Government undertook further engagement with the industry, which we welcome. It would be useful to have an update from the Culture Secretary on how those discussions have progressed. Again, that strikes me as exactly the kind of detailed matter that could be worked through constructively in Committee.

Finally, clause 25 gives the Government a broad standing power to provide financial assistance in connection with sporting events. There is a certain lack of clarity about what the criteria and eligibility for such payments would be. I ask, again, that that be considered further in Committee.

We all want Britain to remain one of the finest places in the world to host major sport. We all want to attract new world cups, European championships and other global events, as that is good for the sporting sector, our economy, the country and our people. We are fortunate that Britain starts from a position of considerable strength, with its world-class venues, experienced organisers, passionate spectators, internationally recognised events and a sporting heritage that few countries can match. Now we must capitalise and further build on those strengths to fully unleash the sector’s potential. The Bill can meaningfully contribute to that.

Our task now is to preserve the improvements made to the Bill in the other place, so that we deliver on the intention of ensuring that our great recurring events are properly covered. The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and the ambition behind it, and we will support its Second Reading while working constructively with the Government to improve and clarify it further as it proceeds through the House.

BBC Leadership

Rebecca Paul Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.