Max Wilkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 May 2025 · GP services in Cheltenham · Hansard source

  More

  I rise on behalf of petitioners in Cheltenham. Cheltenham is a thriving and growing town, which has many old buildings. That combination of factors provides challenges in the provision of medical services. Some of our existing GP surgeries are searching for improved premises, and with more homes planned in our area, it will be vital to provide new premises to meet additional demand. I present this petition, a replica of which has been signed by 3,412 Cheltenham residents. It states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom Declares that a new GP surgery is needed in Cheltenham, as local surgeries have warned that GPs are under strain, working long hours with no breaks, and some residents struggle to secure timely appointments, and to accommodate the growth of the town. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003074]

• 15 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T4. Residents in Cheltenham remain extremely frustrated about the state of the roads. We have too many potholes and the approach taken to the maintenance of our high street by the previous Conservative county council administration has been substandard. The state of our strand and the threat to our promenade are at the forefront of people’s minds. We have finally had a change of administration, with the Liberal Democrats now in charge of the county council. What can the Secretary of State and Ministers do to reassure me that the Liberal Democrat county council will be given the tools that it needs to fix our roads and maintain our high street properly?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has criticised the Opposition for the motion but, to give them their due, at least they have turned up. They delivered Brexit, but none of its architects, who would usually be sitting on the Benches behind me, have shown up. Does that not show the contempt in which those Members hold us, and voters as well?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the shadow Minister has quantum leapt into a body in which Brexit has been a huge success. Could he say either way?

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—as the parent of a toddler, soft play centres are a vital service that I use. I am sure that all around my hon. Friend’s vast constituency, there are far more soft play centres in the various churches, and I join him in saying thank you. The individuals who volunteer deserve our thanks, although they never ask for it. Churches also act as an economic driver. Anglican cathedrals alone contribute £235 million to local economies and support around 6,000 full-time jobs. The tourists visiting those sites—I almost said Tories, although I sure they like to visit churches, too—spend an extra £128 million per year. The heritage value of the buildings is a testament not only to the faith of Britain but to our enduring cultural history. In the centre of my constituency is Cheltenham minster, which is our oldest building at more than 850 years old. It now sits next to one of our newest buildings, the Minster Exchange development, which is a hub for tech and cyber businesses. The fact that Cheltenham’s oldest building sits next to a building at the forefront of modern technology is a testament to the enduring social utility of religious spaces throughout the ages. That is why it should concern us that so many churches—more than 900, as I understand it—are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register. The Church of England’s repair bill of more than £1 billion is a matter of huge concern for the cultural life of our nation. We welcome the Government’s recent decision to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme until 2026. That is good news, and we seek confirmation that it will be renewed after that. However, we remain concerned that the new £25,000 cap may limit its effectiveness, and believe that outstanding claims under the previous, uncapped arrangement should be honoured. We are also concerned about the long-term sustainability of these institutions. In the past decade, more than 3,500 churches have closed in the UK. In Scotland, 40% of churches are at risk of closure, and in Wales nearly a quarter have already shut their doors. This is not just about religion, but about community life. We ignore the value of that at our peril.

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), on securing this important debate. As a Liberal Democrat, I am primarily interested in the fixing of church roofs, as the Leader of the Opposition has so keenly pointed out, so it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. Actually, I take her statement as a compliment, because such work shows an interest in our communities, which is what we have all displayed during the debate. Across the United Kingdom, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship have long stood at the heart of our communities. They are not just architectural landmarks, but vital, living institutions, and it is the people who make them. They are the anchor points of community life, and today, more than ever, they remain places of refuge, service and solidarity. Historically, churches have provided more than spiritual guidance, although that is their primary service. They have funded hospitals, built schools and supported the most vulnerable long before the modern welfare state. They were, and still are, the institutions to which many of us turn first in times of hardship and crisis. Today, their role has evolved. The 40,000 churches across our country offer mental health services, youth clubs, after-school programmes and warm spaces. Churches are responsible for running the majority of food banks in the UK. They often step in where the state has stepped back. Before the pandemic, churches and other places of worship were co-ordinating around 35,000 social action projects, including 8,000 food banks, 4,000 parent and toddler groups—more about them later—2,600 breakfast clubs and 2,400 night shelters for homeless people. Around 2.6 million in the UK sought help from churches during the cost of living crisis, the majority for food but a significant number to access a warm space, too. These are extraordinary numbers: they represent not just acts of charity, but the fabric of care that binds our communities together, thanks to the dedication of the religious institutions that continue to serve them. I know this from personal experience. Prior to my election last summer, I was a full-time dad—I think I am the only newly elected MP who was a full-time dad in the lead-up to my election. With my daughter, I regularly joined the Highbury congregational church play group, just around the corner from my house, and Little Notes baby music class at St Mark’s. I am particularly thankful for the role that those two churches have played in our family life. I would like to thank the religious groups that support our most vulnerable in my town. At St Michael’s church in Whaddon, the Cornerstone centre plays a vital role in looking after people who need a bit extra to get by, ably supported by the Rev. James White, who is a truly wonderful man. It also hosts community counselling services to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. I have seen that work in action when I have visited and the responses of the people who use those services. It is truly moving to see the change that those services can stimulate in the people who need that. At St Gregory’s Roman Catholic church and among those who attend the Quaker meeting house in Cheltenham, there is a community working very hard to support refugees and asylum seekers. They do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  One of the things I have appreciated about this Government’s approach is the moderate tone of language that they have taken on really divisive cultural issues, but I am afraid I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister use the phrase “island of strangers” today. We all remember the deleterious effect on public debate after the “citizen of nowhere” speech, and I am concerned that we are going in the same direction. Can the Home Secretary offer me any reassurance?

• 7 May 2025 · United States Film Tariff · Hansard source

  More

  British film really is the marmalade sandwich in the lunchbox of our creative industries; it has given us Bond, Paddington, Harry Potter and Monty Python. Donald Trump clearly thinks he is a god-like figure, but on the Lib Dem Benches, we are clear that he is not the messiah—he’s a very naughty boy. If he had his way, we would be watching “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Alcatraz”, or perhaps “Harry Potter and the Executive Order of the Phoenix”. Will the Minister confirm that all options will be on the table to protect our film industry, including working with allies such as Canada and Australia, which have shown strength in recent weeks by voting anti-Trump? Will he commit to immediately meeting film industry leaders in the UK to co-ordinate a response in this area, and will the Government back our world-leading creatives by doing the right thing on AI and copyright?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is absolutely right. There are clear issues of process here. There are differential approaches across the country—different coroners taking different approaches and different police forces taking different approaches. The words of Ministers have weight and I hope that coroners and police forces are taking note of what needs to happen in the future so that there are proper investigations into the deaths of children who may have suffered misadventure as a result of social media. On related matters, new clause 1 would gain the support of parents like Ellen up and down this country. We need to move further and faster on this issue of social media and online safety—as this Government promised on various other things—and I am pleased that my party has a very clear position on it. I will now turn to the issue of copyright protections. I held a roundtable with creatives in Cheltenham, which is home to many tech businesses and AI companies. The creative industries in my town are also extremely strong, and I hear a lot of concern about the need to protect copyright for our creators. The industry, is worth £124 billion or more every year, remains concerned about the Government’s approach. The effects of these issues on our culture should not be understated. We would be far poorer both culturally and financially if our creatives were unable to make a living from their artistic talents. I believe there is still a risk of the creative industry being undermined if the Government remove protections to the benefit of AI developers. I trust that Ministers are listening, and I know that they have been listening over the many debates we have had on this issue. If they were to remove those protections, they would tip the scales in favour of AI companies at the cost of the creative industry. When we ask AI companies and people in tech where the jobs are going to come from, the answers are just not there. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) would reinstate copyright protections at all levels of AI development and reinforce the law as it currently stands. It is only fair that when creative work is used for AI development, the creator is properly compensated. The Government have made positive noises on this issue in multiple debates over the last few months. That is a positive sign, and I think that in all parts of this House we have developed a consensus on where things need to move—but creatives remain uneasy about the implications for their work and are awaiting firm action. Ministers may wish to tackle this issue with future action, and I understand that it might not be dealt with today, but our amendments would enable that to happen. They also have an opportunity today: nothing would send a stronger signal than Government support and support from Members from across the House for my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I implore all Members to back them.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will try a third time, because we tried earlier. The Conservatives have clearly briefed the press that they are angling for a ban on social media for under-16s—it has been reported in multiple places. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether that is the Conservatives’ position or not?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. As ever, he is extremely polite in his presentation and in his dealing with interventions, but I am not sure that he dealt with my intervention, which was basically asking whether the Conservative party position is as it has briefed to the press—that it wishes to ban social media for under-16s—or that it wishes to have a review on raising the age of data consent. It cannot be both.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law. In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion. The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees. The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants. New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties. The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The press have obviously been briefed by Conservatives that the Conservatives are pushing for a ban on social media for under-16s, but it seems that what is actually being suggested is a review of the digital age of consent with a view to perhaps increasing it to 16. The two positions are very different, and I wonder whether the tough talk in the press matches what is actually being proposed by the Opposition today.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The second-best spa town in the country, I am sure, celebrates VE Day wonderfully well. This anniversary arrives at a time of renewed global instability. From Ukraine to the middle east, we are once again reminded that peace is fragile—that it cannot be taken for granted. The international order built in the aftermath of 1945 is under more strain than ever. The world is more dangerous than at any point since the cold war. Members in all parts of the House are so proud that many of our parliamentary colleagues have served in the armed forces, and we all stand with our armed forces. Finally, I wish to express my party’s strong support for the programme of national commemorations planned this year. We can all be very proud of what is happening. These events give us all a meaningful opportunity to reflect on the courage, resilience, and unity that defined the war effort, on the frontlines and on the home front alike. Let us mark this 80th anniversary not just with solemnity, but with resolve. Let us listen to the stories of those who served, from the soldiers to the evacuees, from the factory workers to the codebreakers, and let us make sure that every part of their legacy is carried forward. Let us honour them not just with words, but with action.

• 6 May 2025 · Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  On the eve of war, Liberal leader Archibald Sinclair warned: “A policy which imposes injustice on a small and weak nation and tyranny on free men and women can never be the foundation of lasting peace.” He was speaking about the Munich agreement, which saw European powers cede Czechoslovakian territory to Hitler. Nobody in this House would describe the brave nation or the people of Ukraine as small and weak, but with the spectre of the dictator Vladimir Putin looming large on the eastern edge of Europe and President Trump threatening deals to carve up Ukrainian territory, Sinclair’s words resonate today as they did then. The wartime generation knew the cost of giving ground to tyrants, as they celebrated 80 years ago this week. The best way to honour those who fought for peace is to redouble our efforts to preserve it. Those people, together with today’s serving personnel and veterans, carry forward the legacy of service inherited from that extraordinary wartime generation. In their memory, this anniversary must be a moment not just of reflection, but of a renewed sense of responsibility. This country is at its best when it works with its allies, not when it shrinks from the world. This year is very likely the final big celebration for the veterans of world war two who are still with us. There are 360 names on Cheltenham’s war memorial, and many civilians in my town also died in bombing raids. On VE Day, after six long years at war, people in my constituency and around the country took to the streets to celebrate. At Whaddon primary school, children waved Union Jack flags. People lined up outside the municipal offices in the town centre to hear Winston Churchill deliver his VE Day speech. An effigy of Adolf Hitler was burned. The celebrations reportedly ran well past midnight, which is rather late for a genteel Cotswolds spa town in the 1940s. It is right that we in this House pause to remember the scale of the sacrifice and the legacy of the victory that that generation gave us. This anniversary is not simply about marking dates in a calendar, but a chance to say thank you to the dwindling number of surviving veterans and to all those who have served, suffered, and rebuilt. Today I think of Lorna, a 105-year-old I recently met at St Ives Court in Cheltenham and very possibly my oldest constituent. She told me proudly about her contribution to the war effort as an intelligence analyst in Whitehall. I think of all those who served in the Gloucestershire Regiment and I think of my two grandfathers, both of whom served— one in the Navy and one in the RAF. This anniversary is about ensuring that we continue to stand up for what they stood for. We must use this moment to recommit ourselves to the international co-operation and diplomacy that helped to deliver 80 years without a third world war. It is a peace that has been threatened by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. It is no coincidence that European unity was born from the ashes of the second world war. It has been the greatest peacebuilding project in history and, in the face of the threats that confront us today, we must once again stand shoulder to shoulder with our European allies. That means supporting NATO, standing up to aggression, and strengthening the rule of international law. That does not mean, as some have callously suggested, that Ukraine should accept a deal to cede some of its territory to Putin. That would be a betrayal of the principles for which the wartime generation fought. That includes those who suffered in the far east. They have often received less recognition than those who served in Europe. The conflict there continued for nearly three months after VE Day, in punishing conditions and at immense human cost. Yet in too many commemorations, their stories are not heard. We owe these individuals our deepest gratitude, and it is good that we are remembering them this VE Day. That gratitude to all those who have served must be expressed not just in words, but in action: action to defend our democracy; and action to defend the British values of liberty, tolerance and respect for the rule of law. Respecting our veterans means looking after them properly after their service is over—looking after their mental health, their housing, and their right to compensation. This anniversary is not only about how we treat veterans, but about how we tell the story of the war and whose voices we include. The role of Commonwealth forces in securing victory is also often overlooked. Some 2.5 million Indian troops served in the second world war, many of them in the gruelling Burma campaign. Troops from Africa, the Caribbean, and across the Empire fought valiantly under British command. As a Liberal and an internationalist, I believe that we must be proud of them. It is only right that, today and this week, we recognise the contribution of our Commonwealth soldiers. Beyond the parades and ceremonies, we must embed this fuller history into our national consciousness, because remembrance without inclusion is incomplete.

• 6 May 2025 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, I was sitting behind the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I made some comments, and I learned the lesson that the microphones in this place are very good and pick up comments made by those sitting directly behind hon. Members. The comments that I made related to the second earnings of the hon. Member for Clacton, declared in his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A Reform UK social media account digitally manipulated those comments to give the appearance that I had described the hon. Member using a four-letter expletive. This is misinformation. It is fake news. It is Trumpian tactics. It was reported to Elon Musk’s X; no response was received. If footage in this House is allowed to be digitally manipulated for political ends in the name of Members of this House, that puts at risk the proceedings in this House and, I believe, puts at risk democracy. I have raised this point of order to put the facts on the public record so that my constituents and everyone else know what actually happened, and to seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I should do.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this important debate. Think of Robbie Williams, Josiah Wedgwood, Arnold Bennett, Alton Towers, “The Great Pottery Throw Down” and Rory Delap’s throw-ins, the Peak district, mile upon mile of canals, the area’s fascinating industrial past and present, and—who could forget it—the commentator’s favourite: “But can they do it on a cold night in Stoke?” The last is a cultural reference as old as some Members of Parliament in the 2024 intake. It dates to the bygone era of Tony Pulis, whose cultural contribution is perhaps best summed up by the descriptive Goldie Lookin Chain lyric in tribute to the man himself: “Tony Pulis, one hell of a bloke; Tony Pulis, he manages Stoke.” Football hard men aside, Staffordshire has shaped the cultural texture of Britain for centuries, and not just with its famous ceramics, although I will start there. In the 18th century, visionary potters like Josiah Wedgwood revolutionised pottery, making Stoke-on-Trent a world-famous centre of excellence. Wedgwood was so good that he became known as the Queen’s potter, proof that even back then Staffordshire knew how to make a good royal impression. In literature, Hanley-born Arnold Bennett captured the working-class life of industrial Britain in a way that still resonates with readers. In the post-industrial era, Staffordshire has continued to enrich our culture. I am sure that Take That would never have reached such heights of success in the 1990s and 2000s were it not for Staffordshire’s own Robbie Williams. Staffordshire’s cultural scene is alive and well today. The Lichfield festival continues to bring together music, theatre and literature in the county. Each year it draws crowds to historic venues such as Lichfield cathedral with world-class performances. Liberal Democrats are arguing for investment in extracurricular activities for children, such as sport, music and drama. Without that, we cannot expect the next Robbie Williams or Josiah Wedgwood to pursue a career in arts and crafts. Where will the next throw-in specialist come from if sports facilities in Staffordshire do not receive the necessary investment? We must recognise that much of our cultural sector is supported by local authority funding. Discretionary spending on culture is often the first spending to be cut, but that trend must cease if Staffordshire, and everywhere else, is to thrive culturally. We would protect the independence of arts funding so that it can no longer be exposed to political interference, as we have seen over the last few years, and we would introduce cultural creative enterprise zones to stimulate growth. Local authorities must be given the tools to protect their cherished heritage. In Staffordshire, that would mean protecting the county’s beautiful manor houses, mills, castles and so much more. That brings me to tourism. Staffordshire’s theme parks offer a host of rollercoasters, including at Alton Towers and Drayton Manor, where my wife tells me she spent the best birthday of her life when she was seven. Thanks to Staffordshire, my annual efforts will never, ever be quite good enough. I am told that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) is particularly thankful for the contribution of theme parks to public life, although I understand that he has yet to visit Alton Towers—it is time to invite him. These facilities are a major source of tourism for Staffordshire, and they support a considerable number of jobs in the local economy. The tourism industry needs and deserves proper support, so the Liberal Democrats would upgrade the Government’s tourism function with a dedicated Minister for tourism and hospitality. That would give a bigger voice in government to a sector that not only supports our global soft power, but contributes £58 billion to the economy each year. With your indulgence, Ms Furniss, I will touch briefly on one telling contribution made by Staffordshire to the last general election. The Liberal Democrats are extremely thankful for the role played by the staff at Yarnfield Park, where we hosted a series of secret training briefings for our candidates between the pandemic lockdown and our successful 2024 general election campaign. If nothing else, that is surely a testament to how truly inspiring the culture of Staffordshire can be.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will not be placing any bets from this Chamber today—not to the benefit of myself anyway. On ownership, this Bill provides a stronger defence against owners who might have a dodgy track record, but there are still gaps at the back. The new owners and directors test still makes no explicit mention of human rights. That is a glaring miss. Sportswashing is an all-too-common tactic used by oppressive regimes to launder their reputations through our national game. As the historic home of the global game, we have a moral duty to seek to use the soft power of football. Those who want to run a football club in this country should not be able to do so while running roughshod over human dignity elsewhere in the world. Liberal Democrats will continue to push the Government to replace the red carpet for dodgy foreign owners with a red card. On broadcasting, not a single premier league match this season has been shown on free-to-air television. All 380 matches in the premier league now lie behind a paywall, while matchday tickets are increasingly expensive. The latest deals will see Sky Sports and TNT Sports have the rights to show premier league matches for a four-year period. That means that those without a subscription will have no opportunity to watch a live match on television until the 2030s at the earliest. Spain’s la liga has one free-to-air game per week, as does England’s women’s super league. We will continue to champion expanded access to free live sport broadcasting in this Bill. We will also call for the strengthening of the Bill to ban domestic games being played abroad. The thought of Manchester City playing Arsenal in Dubai should leave us all reaching for the sick bucket. We can go further to build a game that is open, accountable and properly rooted in its communities. Every good manager knows when to switch to a 4-3-3 and bring on the super-sub. It could be Steve Howard—I understand that the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), is a Birmingham City fan. Now is the time for Ministers to embrace that principle of bringing on substitutes, changing the formation and being even more ambitious about this Bill; after all, they have more than enough players sitting on the Government Benches to be more ambitious. They should do that because football is not just a business. It is part of who we are as a nation, so let us treat it that way.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The football regulator would have a wider role than currently envisaged in the Bill if the Liberal Democrats were in charge. When the Lords tried to tackle the proliferation of gambling ads, the Government committed a professional foul. As the Bill makes its way through this House, we hope that MPs will show gambling companies a yellow card—yellow cards on this matter are very Liberal—not a red card; we do not propose the banning of gambling, shadow Ministers will be pleased to hear.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Well, that person will be working within the boundaries of the regulator, and he is obviously very good at striking deals, is he not? If the hon. Gentleman’s contention is that he did a good job in his old job, we can be confident that he will do a good job in his new role. The Liberal Democrats think that the redistributive mechanisms ought to go even further to promote financial sustainability, including by taking account of the restricted resources in the fifth tier, and redistribution beyond that level to cover more grassroots clubs in the national leagues north and south and beyond. Then, there is social responsibility. Football clubs are not just businesses; they are also civic institutions. They are often the most visible and well-loved organisations in any community. Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords pushed for clubs to be mandated to report on their community work, so I welcome the new clause requiring clubs to do so. In my constituency, the Cheltenham Town Community Trust delivered £5.4 million-worth of social value work with young people and older people, and to reduce antisocial behaviour, in its last reporting year. What gets measured gets done. Clubs want to continue doing such work, but they cannot keep doing it if they cannot afford to because the Premier League is hoarding all the money. We need to go further to support clubs in that, particularly by providing help for smaller clubs that may struggle to fulfil reporting requirements. I agree with the Members who have made similar comments. We believe that the Bill must go further on problem gambling. Nearly 30,000 gambling messages were posted across the premier league’s opening weekend this season. That represents a tripling of ads compared with the almost 11,000 recorded over the opening weekend of the season before. Such ads are normalising a dangerous relationship between football and gambling that is destroying lives. Football should not be a gateway drug to problem gambling. It cannot be right that, whether watching on television or in the stands, we are bombarded with gambling adverts to the extent that the enjoyment of the game is now, for so many people, culturally intertwined with placing bets. It cannot be right that broadcasters can launch their own gambling platforms, and use advert breaks to promote those platforms, using the pundits who describe the games as mouthpieces for gambling. That merger of journalism and advertising should give us all pause for thought.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Football is irrevocably intertwined into our national story. It is about belonging, about the communities we live in and about what we do in our spare time, and it is what we daydream about when we are supposed to be working—I feel that on a very personal level every day. Today I speak primarily not as a politician or a Liberal Democrat spokesperson, but as a football fan. I have been to more than 50 football league grounds, and to a fair few non-league grounds, too—Brimscombe and Thrupp FC in the Stroud constituency is well worth the attention of the non-league ground-hoppers out there. I have followed England home and away. These days, I mostly watch my local team Cheltenham Town, who have enjoyed a thoroughly mid-table season, but I grew up watching Southampton, and when time allows, I still watch them now—through the gaps between my fingers at the moment. Despite that, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), who is no longer in his place, will remember when times were so much worse for Southampton. I am sorry that he is not here to hear this. I had a season ticket when he was chairman—[Hon. Members: “He’s there!”] Oh, there he is, speaking to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not listening to a word I am saying. I remember this from when I was a fan in the stands, calling for so much better. I hope for the sake of football that today this Bill does not go the same way as the Saints’ season. As Ministers know, the Liberal Democrats will support the Bill because the game needs financial sustainability. There have been too many Burys, Chesters, Herefords, Macclesfields and Readings. The heritage assets in our game need protection. Who can forget when Cardiff were forced to play in red, or when Wimbledon were moved against their will to Milton Keynes?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. There are too many examples of football clubs being separated from their stadiums, training grounds and assets, and it is a disgrace every single time when football clubs are asset-stripped. I mentioned sustainability, heritage and fan engagement. Those are the three things we think the Bill will bring about—those are its aims. Although the Bill is not perfect, it will make important progress on all those points. Indeed, shortly after I was elected, the board of Cheltenham Town and the Robins Trust both asked me clearly to back the Bill. We will do so because it is the right thing to do. The Bill is cross-party in origin. We should all thank Tracey Crouch for her work on the fan-led review and the shadow Minister for his subsequent work on the Bill in the last Parliament. It is a shame that Dame Tracey’s party has decided to score an own goal today. The Conservatives might seek to present themselves as akin to the England heroes in 1966, but in trying to kill the Bill, they are more like the villainous Maradona and his “hand of God” in 1986. By seeking to kill the football regulator, they are betraying football fans the length and breadth of the country—they are going in studs-up on football fans. That is the kind of political acumen that means that they represent only one football league club. Can anyone name it?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Bromley—there we go. I think that has rather proved my point for me. The Conservatives’ reference to the risk of increased ticket prices suggests that they are either uninformed about or wilfully ignorant of the existing problems that football fans suffer every week with ticket price inflation, as tens of thousands of fans will confirm. Unaccountable football club owners are not forced to engage with football fans on the issue of ticket pricing. In my reflections on how to improve the Bill, I will begin with financial fairness. According to Simon Perruzza, the chief executive of the Cheltenham Town Community Trust, the Bill is needed “to ensure clubs like ours continue to make a valuable contribution to supporters and the community, the game’s fractured governance model and inequitable distribution of finance need to be urgently addressed”. The Premier League generates more than £3 billion each year from media rights alone, yet the share reaching clubs further down the pyramid is dwindling; it keeps 84% of the revenue now, up from 74% in 2007. Any suggestion that the Premier League is a golden goose that will be killed by the Bill somewhat misunderstands the problem in our game. The campaign group Fair Game warns that the balance of funding between the top division and lower leagues in this country stands in stark contrast to that in other major leagues. The fact is that the money simply is not trickling down here as it does in other European leagues.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), on securing this important debate. In my constituency, we have thriving creative and tech industries off the back of GCHQ—Cheltenham has a lot of creative businesses. When I hosted my roundtable with the creatives, they told me that they are extremely worried about what they assume is being proposed in the Government’s consultation. When I talk to tech start-ups, they say they are also concerned about that because they are worried that the things they are doing to innovate are being scraped. That is a concern from an economic growth perspective, in both directions, and the Government need to acknowledge that. Intellectual property rights protect human ingenuity. They are the legal and moral foundations that allow creators to share in the value of what they create, but artificial intelligence is blurring the line between human and machine authorship, and is raising urgent and complex questions. Who owns an AI-generated piece of music trained on thousands of copyrighted songs? How do we enforce rights when the inputs and outputs are hidden behind proprietary algorithms? The answer must be that creators own the rights to their work, and those rights must be protected. For centuries, creators have honed their craft through years of study, practice and transformation. That contributes to what we all enjoy about the creative industries, but AI now allows machines to ingest and remix millions of works in seconds, fundamentally altering the relationship between inspiration and creation. If we talk to tech companies about this, we find that they do not quite grasp the difference between their innovation and that of the human mind. That unprecedented scale and speed demands stronger, not weaker, protections. Our creative industries generate £126 billion annually and are central to our economy and cultural identity. As AI continues to reshape content production, the intellectual property rights of our writers, musicians and artists must be safeguarded, not weakened. As we argued during the debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill, when innovation outpaces regulation, we risk losing public trust and undermining the creative industries that employ 2.3 million people across the country. That is bad for our economy. Throughout the debates on data legislation, we have consistently argued that consent must not be an afterthought but should be the default. If a human being has created something, they have the right to know how it is being used and to be fairly recognised and remunerated for that use. That principle must carry through to how we approach AI and intellectual property. The tech companies claim that an opt-in system would be too technically complex to implement. Well, they would, wouldn’t they? But at its heart, this debate is not about technical feasibility. It is about being willing to respect creators’ rights from the outset, preventing theft, as Members have said, and supporting our valued creative industries. We have also warned against innovation washing: the idea that technical progress should come before ethical scrutiny. It is not anti-innovation to protect creators, but quite the opposite. A fair IP framework is what allows our creativity and innovation to thrive, and it is good for our economy, too. So what must we do? First, we must ensure that web crawlers and AI models are bound by existing copyright law. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would enforce existing copyright protections, rather than weakening them through a suggested opt-out system. Secondly, we need meaningful transparency. Our amendments would increase data and identity transparency for crawlers and models, ensuring that creators know how and where their work is being used to train AI systems. Thirdly, we need a clear path for consent and compensation. We have seen in the data Bill debates how opaque data-collection practices undermine public confidence. That lesson must apply here. Creators should have the right to opt in or opt out of their work being used in AI training, and there must be mechanisms for meaningful, proportionate compensation. I also urge the Government to lead internationally on this issue. We have an opportunity to establish stronger protections that better serve our creative sector. The Independent Society of Musicians, the Authors Guild, the British Copyright Council and the Association of Illustrators—to name just a few of the many organisations representing hundreds of thousands of creators—all support that stance. The global nature of AI necessitates co-ordination through the World Intellectual Property Organisation and alignment with international partners, but British creators deserve robust protections that travel with their work across international borders. This debate has repeatedly shown that, across party lines, we believe that creators must be protected—that is true of those who speak on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Government, the Conservatives and the nationalists, and those elsewhere, too. Creators must be at the centre. Data and innovation policy must work for people, not just for platforms, algorithms or corporations. Let us remember that behind every dataset are human stories: the novelist who spent years crafting her narrative; the musician who refined his composition through countless hours of practice; the visual artist whose unique perspective shapes our cultural landscape. Their rights are not obstacles to innovation, but its very foundation.