Nigel Huddleston MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I love to do everything I can to support our pubs and hospitality industry—and I do mean everything. I am pleased to represent an area of the country that has many fantastic pubs, many of which are participating in my current “Pub of the Year” competition, and voting is now open. Can we have a debate in Government time about the important role of our hospitality industry in our local communities? Can I invite the Leader of the House and you, Madam Deputy Speaker—in fact, everybody—to the winner of the competition, wherever it may be? I do not promise to pay for every pint, but we will see how it goes.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Business Rates: Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, and take it back.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Business Rates: Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  That is some brass neck, Mr Speaker. I am astounded that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box and expect credit and gratitude for giving a little bit of support to a sector that his own policies have undermined and destroyed—two pubs a day closing down, and 100,000 jobs lost in hospitality and tourism. Will he instead adopt the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief and actually support these sectors, rather than giving hypocritical warm words?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate. As always, we agree on virtually everything, so I will not repeat many of the things he said. I am also in broad agreement with the Government’s goals and much of the Green Paper but, like my right hon. Friend, I have two areas of concern. First, I am concerned about the dynamics and practicalities of the future of television distribution after the switch-off of digital terrestrial television, provided most frequently through Freeview. That will take place in either 2034 or 2044, and it could have a profound impact on remote and rural communities in particular, such as parts of my Droitwich and Evesham constituency. Secondly, I am concerned about the thorny issue of prominence. It is a noble ambition to counter misinformation and to ensure that trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable, but it raises important questions. What exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies? How will such a system be enforced? The Government have made it clear that a DTT switch-off is coming, so the question is not simply whether the transition will happen, but how it will protect vulnerable users and those at risk of being digitally excluded, notwithstanding all the positive reasons for the change, which my right hon. Friend outlined some moments ago and which I will not repeat. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted, in recent times of trouble, including storms and fires, we have seen how vital these services are, particularly when other forms of media, such as broadband and mobiles, may be switched off, and we must consider that security aspect to the debate. The prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch-off on radio transmission costs. Without appropriate financial mitigation, it could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT; if there were a switch-off, the costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, creating a significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards and potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%. That is deeply concerning, particularly in rural communities. Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others—particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes—may struggle to afford the internet contracts required to replace free-to-air television. We must not a create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and, importantly, essential public information. The Government must adopt a general rural-proofing approach to this transition, so that no community and no generation is left behind. On a related point, the effects of that wider shift are already being felt in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitting station in Wychbold closed its long-wave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. Furthermore, there are security aspects to retaining long-wave capacity. It is very difficult to block analogue radio signals—at least, it is much more difficult than blocking their internet equivalent—and long-wave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis. In a future wartime scenario, the UK might be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles. We then come to the issue of prominence. The Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media and to make public service media content more prominent on third-party platforms. The policy objectives are clear and noble but, as always, the devil is in the detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, there are concerns about how that will be executed and about the vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and its ability to hold us to account as politicians. We have to strike the right balance between ensuring that people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest debate stifled, and the exchange of new ideas discouraged. The Government must therefore ensure that their definition of “trusted” content does not become a proxy for Government-approved content. There have been, and still are, authoritarian regimes around the world that have adopted such an approach to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies. Therefore, although I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister’s responses on those issues in his reply.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  There is a video circulating online that claims the three most difficult things to say in life are “I’m sorry,” “I love you” and “Worcestershire”. It is fascinating to see that the right hon. Lady struggles with at least two of those three things. I am glad that she has abandoned, or at least paused, her decision to destroy the well run, low-tax, Conservative-controlled Wychavon district council, but is she aware of the chaos and cost that she has caused to councils in Worcestershire and across the country? She is giving very strong vibes that she does not know what she is doing. Is that because she does not know what she is doing?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other point he makes is that, when we do these events, it is often one individual city or one particular location that gets a lot of the focus. There seems to be a trend at the moment, which I quite like, of having multiple venues and often multiple countries, even when hosting major international events—we saw that this year with the world cup. We have often bid on a four-nations basis, which can be beneficial, and we will continue to do so. That goes back to the point that the economic benefit can be so considerable that it is great if we can spread it outside the M25. It is important that we do that. I do not want to be negative about London—we have amazing sports venues in London—but we always need to think about London-plus, if London is the anchor. As the former Sport Minister who oversaw the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I am familiar with, and therefore welcome, many of the framework provisions that go deep into the weeds of event organisation on matters such as ticket sales, unauthorised advertising, brand protection, transport logistics and so on. Previously, they had to be considered in discreet Bills for each and every event, which clearly does not make sense. The basic logic for this Bill is therefore sensible. Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are some changes that we would like to see, along the lines of what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. In particular, many in the Lords expressed a concern that the definition of “events” used in the Bill initially seemed to cover way too narrow a group. I therefore appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments. Indeed, I remember us having a conversation about the matter at Silverstone and how there is some logic to including many of the important domestic events. As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that does not necessarily mean everything all the time, but we can pick and choose elements of the Bill. That always causes complexities in such Bills, because it can cause some challenges, so we probably need to build in some flexibility. I am sure that, later on, as we go through the Bill’s stages, we will be able to work that out. There is a clear and strong feeling on behalf of the major domestic sporting events that were mentioned—Wimbledon, the grand prix and so on—that we do right by them and, quite frankly, make it easier for Government in dealing with those things. Again, let us just use a hefty dose of common sense. There are a couple of other sport-related matters, which I would like to raise, that should be considered in the wider context of the Bill, and I would genuinely appreciate the Minister’s views on those in her closing comments. She will be aware of speculation about allowing alcohol sales at football games. The Conservatives introduced an amendment to the Football Governance Act 2025—I say “the Conservatives”, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is sitting on the Front Bench—for a consultation on lifting the alcohol ban in top-tier football. Unfortunately, despite a lot of agreement cross-party, that amendment was shot down by the then Labour Government. Will the Minister now reconsider that, and is the Bill an appropriate vehicle or opportunity for that consideration? For example, would alcohol sales be restricted at some of the events that we talk about in the Bill? Similarly, are the Government reconsidering the 3 pm blackout rule? That is nothing to do with the Bill, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot. I also want to touch on something that has been mentioned before, which is the listed events regime. Is that being reviewed, particularly in the context of the events being considered in the Bill? If there is Government support for hosting an event and taxpayers’ money is being put into it, there is a reasonable expectation that attendance and viewing of that event should be maximised in-country to maximise the overall benefit and inspiration that these things can provide. Is this therefore a good time to reconsider the listed events regime, particularly for events supported with taxpayers’ money and held in the home nations? BBC Sport’s fantastic coverage of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games achieved record-breaking audiences on TV, streaming and online. I was fortunate, as the Ministers were, to attend the Glasgow Commonwealth games this year. The city and the organisers put on a fantastic show, particularly given the circumstances of how the games came about, which I think most people are familiar with. It was a deliberately smaller-scale event than the Birmingham games, and although the coverage on TNT Sports and Channel 5 was good, it did not get the breadth of coverage and therefore achieve the level of awareness in-country that we would have had, for example, had the BBC or another major broadcaster secured those rights. That raises questions about what the BBC is bidding for and how much it is bidding. That is definitely a debate for another day, though an important one. I will end there by confirming that I broadly support the Bill and I certainly look forward to engaging constructively with Ministers as it goes through its remaining stages. I hope we will see some amendments supported by all parties.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps then we can turn the tables and see Conservatives benefit from Labour’s hard work, rather than the other way around.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have particularly enjoyed today’s reminiscing about London 2012. I remember Super Saturday very well, because I was watching the beach volleyball, which was just up the road, of course, at Horse Guards Parade. I think that was the third time I went to the beach volleyball—for some reason that attracted me quite a lot—and there were a lot of good events going on. Unlike the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), though, I was very much not a teenager at the time. I will take this opportunity to reiterate something I said this morning by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State to her role. This is an incredibly broad, fascinating, but also daunting brief—I think anybody who has been involved in DCMS recognises that—but she will enjoy it, and I wish her the very best of luck. If there is any way that I can support her, she will always have my support. I would also like to thank my former team: my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who is on the Front Bench right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and Lord Parkinson. I also thank the broader team, who did such a good job at supporting me and, most importantly, the sectors. I can see already that there will be a good working relationship between Opposition and Government. In those areas where party politics is not relevant—that is often the case in DCMS matters—that relationship is important. It is not always seen in the Chamber—it is often seen at events or in the corridors—but it is important that there is that dynamic. I am not going to lay it on too thick, though. I am not going to say that I will ever vote for the Secretary of State or the Minister, but I think that the most important thing to recognise is that Members can be opponents while also being civil to each other, decent and, quite frankly, nice people. People do not always see that in this place. Politics is politics—there will always be areas of disagreement—but a constructive relationship where a constructive relationship is required is vital for British democracy, and long may that continue. I do empathise with the Minister, by the way. I have been there, so I know about the constant disagreements and challenges when it comes to asking the Treasury for money. Let me stick to the key theme here of co-operation. I support this Bill. The tone today has obviously been one of general co-operation, for the very reasons that many colleagues have already articulated. The UK, rightfully, has a world-renowned global reputation for doing these kinds of international sporting events not only well but superbly well. We are all committed to delivering international sporting events, and we need even more opportunities to do so, because they do create genuine lasting legacies and inspire the next generation of talent. Sport interest, engagement and participation can have a really positive impact on the nation’s wellbeing by inspiring a more active and healthier nation. It can also lead the way on inclusivity. Think of the amazing achievements in the integrated Commonwealth games, where able-bodied and para-athlete events are held alongside each other. Britain has a proud reputation for not only investing in para-sport and sponsoring para-athletes but broadcasting it on key channels at peak times—something I will come on to again shortly. Hosting major international sporting events makes huge economic sense for UK plc, as several Members have mentioned today. When done well, they can be profitable, and the multiplier impact on spend, travel, and hospitality venues such as pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels—of course from both domestic and international visitors—can be absolutely huge. We must remember that inbound visitor spend is export revenue. Every year, over a million people come to the UK primarily to watch a premier league game, generating over a billion pounds for the UK economy. That is export revenue, so this Bill is not trivial. With Government support, we already have major events secured, including the Euros in 2028 as well as the Fifa women’s world cup in 2035. When I say Government support, it is important to recognise that I mean multiple Governments, because the nature of the extraordinarily long bidding process timelines often meant that not only do the Government have to commit to them but the Opposition have to commit to them as well. Those who are holding the events that we are bidding into often want to see cross-party support, because there could be a different Government by the time of the next event. I am certainly hoping that that will be the case.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Overnight Visitor Levy: Rural and Coastal Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the new shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), to their places. May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State and her team for their constructive engagement with me over the last year? However—there is always a “however” with me —on Tuesday the new Prime Minister committed the Government to bringing in a new holiday tax. On Wednesday, he told the House that he was helping businesses by cutting taxes, yet we all know that business rates and national insurance are increasing, which is destroying over 100,000 jobs in tourism and hospitality alone. In what crazy Labour universe is it possible for the Prime Minister to claim that he is cutting taxes when the Government are actually increasing them and bringing in entirely new taxes?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Summer Jobs · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I really do not get what the Labour party has against people enjoying themselves, having a bit of fun and spending some of their hard-earned cash on things that give them pleasure, whether that is having an occasional flutter on the horses, a drink in the pub with mates, a meal out with friends, a family holiday or indulging in a bit of retail therapy. But the Government—let us be in no doubt—have made policy decisions that have deliberately undermined those sectors, jeopardised the viability of once-thriving businesses and decimated the workforce, especially summer jobs. Labour has whacked up swathes of taxes and made it more difficult and expensive to hire people. Tourism, hospitality, leisure, pubs, bars, restaurants, sport, theme parks, casinos, events, nightclubs, shops, music and art venues all used to be dubbed part of the “fun economy.” Well, not under Labour. They are now the overburdened, overtaxed, struggling-to-survive economy. We know that Labour Members are generally a glum bunch, but why do they want everybody else to be dragged down to their misery? Do Government Members have any idea what people in the country are saying, or who they are blaming for having to close their family businesses, for losing their jobs or for not having the opportunity of a summer job? I have been travelling across the country—that is how I got this tan; by actually getting out there and doing my job—listening to stakeholders, business owners, workers and industry bodies, from Wales to Scotland, St Ives to Skegness, the Cotswolds to Chester, and yesterday in Bognor. Indeed, it is the sunniest place in the country, as I found out yesterday. This is what I heard: “Labour don’t understand business. They don’t care about business. Labour hate the private sector. They don’t understand because they have never had a proper job. They don’t understand the importance of cash flow. Have any of the Cabinet ever run their own business? They care more about people on welfare than about workers. They said they would not put up tax—they have. I will never trust them again”. That is what people are saying. [ Interruption. ] It is transparently clear that those on the Government Benches are not hearing this, which is why I am doing my job by telling them. A coastal hotelier said to me, “I used to hire 10 people over the summer. I will be lucky this year to hire just one.” A restaurateur told me, “I advertised for two summer jobs. I had 270 applications.” Sadly, I heard many people say this well-known phrase: “I wouldn’t trust Labour to run a bath, never mind the country.” Those are not my words but the public’s—the eminently sensible British public, who we are listening to, and I wish the Government would too. Labour MPs must surely be hearing the same things in their own constituencies, which begs the question: why are they allowing the Government to do so much damage in their constituencies? By raising national insurance, whacking up business rates, imposing more regulations and restrictions on the labour market, and failing to bring down energy costs, this Government have destroyed jobs, and especially summer jobs, all while whacking up spending on welfare. Two pubs a day are closing down. StirrUps in Evesham in my constituency announced just this weekend it was closing because “it has become impossible for us to continue operating”. Another pub landlord told me that, despite looking busy and having a turnover of over £1 million, the pub is actually unprofitable and may soon have to close. Yesterday I met a small amusement park and seaside arcade operator, who told me he cannot afford even to open on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays now—and this is getting into peak season—because if he did, he would lose money because of higher taxes and higher energy costs, and he is not hiring as many summer workers either. It used to be the case that people looking for summer jobs could just walk into a pub, bar or restaurant in a seaside resort or in London. That is not happening this year because of Labour policies. Of the nearly 200,000 jobs lost since the Chancellor’s first Budget, over 100,000 have been in tourism and hospitality. That is thousands of summer jobs that have not been created because of this Government’s policies, depriving thousands of young people of the opportunity of their first job. And yet, in their infinite wisdom, as if the sector is not already taxed enough, the Government are planning to bring in a new tourism tax—despite the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is sitting opposite me, saying in the House of Commons previously that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”. Despite the Government cutting the tourism marketing budget and the UK already being one of the most taxed countries in the world for travel and tourism, this Government think it will help the sector if they impose more taxes on it. Only a Labour Administration could genuinely believe that the answer to the sector’s problems is more taxes. It will be a disaster. A £2 per person, per night levy would add £56 to the cost of a one-week family holiday for four. That, in some cases, is more than the cost of the accommodation. UKHospitality polling has found that 57% of people said a £50 increase would put them off taking a holiday. It would particularly damage the shoulder season, which is so vital to sustaining the economies of our already challenged coastal resorts in non-peak months. There is also no guarantee that the money raised through such a levy would be reinvested into tourism promotion or the visitor economy overall. In other countries where tourism taxes exist, they are often accompanied by permanent lower VAT rates. There is huge concern, too, about scope creep and future rate increases. As we enter the fag end of this Chancellor’s time in office, her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs and of opportunities. Moreover, this economic disaster has been the result not of external circumstances or even genuine mistakes, but of deliberate and conscious policy decisions made by a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a party who simply do not get business and do not have even the most basic grasp of economics. You cannot tax your way to growth. You cannot create jobs if you implement policies that make it more expensive and more difficult to hire people. You cannot say that you are on the side of workers if there is no work and, instead, you incentivise welfare. Let us be clear: this Government have brought in some of the most anti-business—and therefore anti-worker—policies this country has ever seen. Labour has increased taxes by £62 billion in the last two Budgets—that is over £2,000 per household. We warned, business warned and even the Treasury warned that this Government’s tax hikes would jeopardise jobs. They did not listen. We warned that failure to deal with a ballooning welfare state would inevitably lead to even higher taxes. We warned that their unemployment Bill would inhibit hiring. They went ahead and pursued job-destroying policies anyway. The cost of keeping the unions happy has been the destruction of the hopes, aspirations and opportunities of a generation of young people. It is of little consolation that the near 200,000 people who have already lost their jobs under Labour will soon be joined by the two leading architects of this economic havoc. Labour may be changing leader, but the problem is that it will still be Labour—big Government, high tax, living beyond its means and anti-business. It will still be Labour, spending other people’s money since 1900. As has already been mentioned, this Government are well on their way to securing the unenviable record of every Labour Government since the second world war leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started. If anything, the indicators are that the new Labour leader and, if rumours are correct, the new Chancellor will be even more anti-business. It is the private sector, business and especially the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, including thousands of small family-run businesses, that are paying the price for Labour’s mistakes and poor judgment. The damage is falling particularly hard on the young, because tourism, hospitality and retail jobs skew young. I know that we are all in disbelief at the recent Office for National Statistics figures revealing the true scale of youth unemployment, which has risen to 16.2% among 16 to 24-year-olds. Astonishingly, that is even higher than during and following the pandemic. We have also heard several hon. Members talk about the 1 million NEETs. The Government’s recent announcement about subsidies for employing young people in hospitality would not be necessary if they had not done so much damage to the sector in the first place. We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people and to lift people out of poverty is to help them get a job. We have a far better record on doing that than Labour. Look at the improvements in educational standards under the Conservatives and on jobs. Between 2010 and 2014, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs, an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs to the tune of hundreds a day. Overall, unemployment has risen to 5% from January to March 2026. Job losses and youth unemployment are the inevitable, expected and entirely predictable consequence of Labour anti-business policies. There is an alternative: a pro-business, low-regulation, low-tax Conservative alternative. We are developing policies based on the sound Conservative values and principles of smaller Government, lower tax, personal responsibility, living within our means, defending our borders and protecting our citizens. We Conservatives are the party of business, aspiration, opportunity and enterprise. Those are sound Conservative values and they are sound British values. Before Government Members object, I know that we made mistakes: we make mistakes when we drift away from those values, but we will not be doing that again. The difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives get the country into trouble when we drift away from our values, but Labour get the country into trouble when it sticks to its values. On policy development, the vast majority of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure space would benefit from our policy of 100% business rates relief. Our plan would benefit 250,000 businesses and cover bills up to £100,000. Turning to a few key points made by colleagues during the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly made an important point about the much-maligned soft skills that are vital to career development and the importance of giving young people experience. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) revealed that he was once a grave-digger—I am sure there is a joke in there somewhere about the current state of the Labour party, but I have not worked it out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important point about international comparisons and lessons learned from places such as the Netherlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke passionately about tourism and mentioned the respected body PASC, which I too have worked with in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) highlighted how retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing challenges on multiple fronts, and that they can appear to be very busy and need more workers, but they simply cannot afford to hire more people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she got 50p per hour in her first job—I am afraid I must be a little bit younger, as I got 99p per hour for my first job. She made an important point about there being 700,000 graduates unemployed at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) highlighted the need for Government often to get out of the way. Again, that is a very sensible, decent and proper Conservative value. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) highlighted the disconnect between the Minister’s opening speech and the reality of what is happening out there in the real world. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—I welcome him to his place—highlighted the damaging experience of the tourism tax in Scotland and how many business owners are actually earning far less than the minimum wage. That is a very important point. My hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Mid Bedfordshire made the important point that they have experience of floor sweeping. That will be of extreme value, because we need to do a huge amount in cleaning up the mess made by this Government on the economy, but we are up to the task. We are the only party up to the task, because the Conservative party is the only genuinely pro-business party left in British politics. By backing business, we are backing workers, and that is backing Britain. Please join us in doing so.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Culture, Media And Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport that forms the basis of today’s debate. I also thank everybody for their contributions today. This important report has highlighted the concerning reality that England’s community and school sport system is not currently delivering either the opportunities that people want or the benefits that we know sport can provide. All too often, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the sectors it oversees are dismissed as “nice to haves” or a bit fluffy, when in fact they are pivotal—indeed, essential—to our economy and society. DCMS sectors—sport, culture, tourism, film, TV, music, heritage, civil society and much more—enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling, while supporting over 5 million jobs in the UK and generating well over £220DCMS’s total expenditure fell 3.3% from 2023-24. The Government have chosen to abolish the National Citizen Service, to undermine horseracing and legitimate gambling, and to cut spending on tourism promotion, on business events, on listed places of worship and even on school sport, while implementing policies that are loading up costs on DCMS sectors, especially through tax rises. The business rates and national insurance rises are decimating DCMS sectors, depriving tens of thousands of young people of their first job opportunity and causing unemployment. Of the nearly 200,000 job losses since Labour came to power, over half were in tourism and hospitality and many of them involved young people. I respect the Minister, and have a lot of time for her, and many of those things were not her Department’s decisions, and that must be intensely frustrating. We all understand the benefits of an active population. When children are active from an early age, they develop confidence, resilience and social skills, and are more likely to enjoy better mental health, improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. If we fail to give every child the opportunity to be active, we risk storing up significant challenges for the future, from rising obesity and poorer mental health to greater pressure on our NHS. Allowing even more development on sports fields and playgrounds is clearly not going to help. The evidence is clear that there is strong public demand for sport provision, but as the report highlights, fragmented policy, inadequate investment and poor cross-Government co-ordination are preventing sport from delivering its full potential—whether improving health outcomes, supporting children’s development, strengthening communities or contributing to economic growth. There is also a gender dimension to this issue, as the Chair of the Select Committee outlined and as a recent report by Sky demonstrated. Investment in sport delivers some of the clearest returns of any area of public spending: Sport England estimates that every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 in social and economic value. The Government announced in January that they were investing £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the country as part of a £400 million boost for grassroots sport facilities by 2030. However, the £400 million figure is the same amount that we announced when we were in government, so thanks to inflation, it is a real-terms cut. There is also little detail on who will receive the money and when. Many sports governing bodies, including those for cricket, swimming and tennis, say that they have plenty of projects that are ready to go, but without clarity on funding, they cannot pull the trigger on key projects across the country. I have particular concerns about school sport, where there has clearly been a bunfight between the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and DCMS about funding. The Government announced £1 billion for school sport over the next three years, but the devil is in the detail. The Department for Education announced that the £320 million annual PE and sport premium for primary schools will be scrapped in favour of a new partnership network. Let us be clear: that is a cut. In fact, it leaves schools around 22% less well off in terms of annual funding than the current scheme. As the report outlined, we need structural reform, sustained investment, clear accountability and a joined-up national strategy. The Government have committed to publishing a national plan for physical activity later this year, and we look forward to scrutinising it. Sport and physical activity cannot solve every challenge facing young people, but they can be one of the most powerful tools for improving health, building confidence, developing skills and strengthening communities. Investment matters—of course it does—but we also need a long-term plan and structural reform. The Committee has provided Ministers with a road map; the challenge is whether the Government have the ambition to follow it.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that. Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that? We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out? The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter? Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

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

• 18 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 18 Jun 2026 · BBC Funding · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. The Royal Albert Hall is a vital part of our tourism ecosystem, our cultural history and our cultural offering. Therefore, my final comment is an offer to the Minister. I am one of the biggest supporters of the arts, culture and heritage, and am very proud to be so, but I sometimes wonder when we have such debates whether it is truly appropriate in this day and age for us to discuss in this Chamber, when there are other demands on our time, the minutiae of the internal dynamics, operations and rule changes in certain institutions. When they were set up and established in other centuries, Parliament was the right vehicle to have such discussions, but I wonder whether it is the right vehicle now. If the Minister—or indeed the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) or others—wishes to discuss, once this has been resolved, whether there is a broader debate to be had about some of the ecclesiastical, heritage and academic institutions where Parliament still needs to arbitrate on what, at the end of the day, are internal operational decisions, I would be happy to discuss with the Minister whether that is an appropriate debate to have in this place.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Royal Albert Hall Bill [Lords]: Revival · Hansard source

  More

  If we do divide today, I shall be supporting this Bill, primarily for the reason that mentioned in its introduction: today we are debating whether to reintroduce the Bill. If we choose to do so, there will be plenty of opportunity to debate it at a later stage, and it appears that several Members want to do just that. Given that the debate has swayed into the substance of the Bill, I should say that I am one of the former Ministers who oversaw the implementation and execution of the culture recovery fund, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), when we were in government—something that I am very proud of.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas. The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events. The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games. For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on. Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one. We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future. As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister. It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world. Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster. As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too. Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous. We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Tourism Sector · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Apr 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 25 Mar 2026 · Proposed Visitor Levy · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing the debate and speaking so wisely, enthusiastically and knowledgeably about the sector in his opening remarks; to the relief of everybody, that means that I will not speak as long as I originally thought I would. I have to start with a basic question to the Minister: what do the Labour Government have against the tourism industry? I mean that in all seriousness because, since the Chancellor’s first Budget, we have seen more than 200,000 job losses, and more than half of them have been in the tourism and hospitality sector. Why does that sector seem to be singled out for additional taxes on top of the burdensome ones already imposed across the breadth of the private sector? Why does the tourism sector seem to be particularly paying the price, especially given how important it is to the UK economy? It brings joy to millions of people—both domestic and overseas visitors—every year, generates more than £147 billion in economic activity and employs well over 2 million people—about 3.5 million, if we include the broader tourism and hospitality sector. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, it is also a major generator of export revenue, adding more than £30 billion a year. That is greater than the car industry and greater than the defence industry, but it is being singled out for yet more taxes. Why? How often do we have to say that we cannot generate economic growth by whacking up taxes, and we cannot create jobs by making it more expensive to employ people? That is why we are seeing unemployment. Before I go on to further details and probably more negative comments, I want to take the opportunity, as many colleagues have, to praise the sector. Our tourism industry is a British success story, and we are very proud of it. Everyone who has contributed has spoken proudly about the amazing things in their constituencies that attract people domestically and from around the world. It is not just the overt tourism things, but our beautiful landscape, incredible heritage, specific tourist offerings and beautiful beaches. We have a lot to offer the world, so we should be proud of this sector, but that raises the question of why it is being hit so hard. It is a major employer in every one of our constituencies. This is already a highly taxed sector. Those are not just my words; the former Tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), said that a few months ago. He also said the Government had no intention of bringing in a tourism tax, but a few weeks later the Government are doing just that. It has been pointed out that this was not a manifesto commitment, just as the national insurance increases were not. The credibility of this policy is therefore already in question, especially when it comes on top of those national insurance increases and the changes to the thresholds, as well as business rates changes that have undermined the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, and significant above-inflation increases in the minimum wage. We support and have supported increases in the minimum wage, but the increase so far above inflation for younger people has had a disproportionately negative impact on their employment prospects. The tourism sector is primarily an avenue for young people, so we have had increased unemployment and huge amounts of missed opportunity for people to have what could have been their first job in an amazing sector. It has been said frequently today that this is not just a tourism tax, but a tax on overnight stays—I agree with my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), who made that point a few moments ago. It is an overnight accommodation tax, and it is therefore unclear who exactly would be within the remit. Yes, obviously hotels and hostels, but is it caravans, tents and B&Bs? Will the private rented sector and other sectors be included? Who would be included? Would there be exceptions for groups such as Guides and others, who rely heavily on and get great joy out of overnight stays? As has been said, even if it is proposed at an early stage that the level should be £2 per person per night, that is an additional £56 on a family holiday for four over a seven-day period. That might not sound like a lot to a lot of people, but in the shoulder seasons in a caravan park, for example, it could add a quarter or more to the cost of a holiday. That would make the decision about whether to go very real, and could do immense damage to the shoulder season. One of the most important things we need to do, particularly for our coastal resorts, is extend the shoulder season to increase the sector’s productivity. I am sure the Minister will comment about how this tax fits into the overall finances of local government and could help local authorities, but there are many practical concerns about how it could be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire asked whether we could get a guarantee that the money would be ringfenced. There is a suspicion that the tourism industry would be subsidising and paying towards broader local government finance. Would the tourism tax end up paying for adult and children’s social care? Unless the Minister can guarantee that that will not be the case, that will always be the suspicion. Tourism taxes are often brought in around the world and then spent on additional tourism and marketing, tourist centres or supporting local tourism offerings. If there is a suspicion that this tourism tax will be spent on other things, it will be doomed to fail from the beginning. The history of all these taxes also shows that, although they may be brought in at a very low level, they always go in just one direction: up and up. So the £56 a week I mentioned could quickly become a much bigger amount. Is the Minister therefore considering putting a cap in the legislation on the maximum amount that could be achieved? Other hon. Members have mentioned that sometimes when these taxes are brought in, there is the quid pro quo of a lower VAT rate; very rarely is there both a high VAT rate and a tourism tax. There are other points to consider. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the point about the challenges if one area raises a tax and another does not, and he has experience of that on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What if Cornwall brought in a tax but Devon did not? Businesses right on the border would face stark issues because of perfectly reasonable decisions made by holidaymakers. That would be through no fault of their own, but because of a decision made by local government. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) spoke of the peculiarities of local government in London, where we have the boroughs and the mayor, and that point has been raised by Conservative councillors as well. She made the reasonable argument that if the tax is brought in, it maybe needs to be split; otherwise, all the benefit goes to one and some of the costs go to others. The hon. Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) raised the fear that if this tax is brought in, there could be 33,000 or more job losses in a sector that is already suffering—I mentioned the over 100,000 jobs that have already been lost in hospitality and leisure. There are real concerns here. I have further questions for the Minister. The key one is about ringfencing: can we please make sure that we can include in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill—if it comes in—that the money will be ringfenced for tourism? Has an assessment been made of the impact of this tax? Can the Minister confirm whether she has had discussions about VisitBritain and VisitEngland spending, which has also been cut? That is the argument I am making: why are the Government constantly attacking this sector, reducing its funding and increasing taxes on it, when it used to be a great success story? Could the Minister confirm whether she will support Conservative party proposals for 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure? There is an alternative to constant increases in taxes. Whatever the problems may be with local government finances—and there are challenges—we all recognise that they should not and cannot be resolved off the back of an already struggling tourism industry. This is the wrong tax at the wrong time. But if it is coming in, can the Minister assure us that the money raised from tourism will absolutely, 100% be spent on tourism?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular. The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week. The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills. Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all. Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike. In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church. That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power. To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued. Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000. Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who? We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Maccabi Tel Aviv Fan Ban · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee and her team for their work. I agree with all of their conclusions. On her last point, about who knew what when, does she agree that it is now very clear that the Government were not co-ordinating effectively, that they seemed to be asleep at the wheel, and that Ministers and/or officials at the Home Office and DCMS were clearly not co-ordinating with each other on what is transparently a very sensitive issue, because they knew about the possibility of the ban weeks before the decision was made and appear to have done absolutely nothing?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 26 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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