Media Green Paper

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate.

It is clear that the media landscape is changing, and changing rapidly. For many young people today, the first time they encounter a major news story is not by opening a newspaper or even turning on the TV; it is when a video appears on their social media feed, selected by an algorithm that is designed to keep them watching. Ofcom’s data tells us that three quarters of 16 to 24-year-olds now get their news mainly from social media. That represents a huge shift in how young people are understanding the world around them and comes with real dangers.

Algorithms are not necessarily designed to inform us; they are designed with engagement in mind. That means that, for social media platforms, attention rather than accuracy is the priority. As politicians, we know that this comes with real implications for our democracy. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said about the importance of young and new voters having access to reliable news sources.

We welcome the Green Paper, which recognises the change in our media landscape. However, the transformation is creating another challenge for our traditional broadcasters. Public service broadcasters have a vital and unique role in the UK’s media landscape. They provide trusted news, educational programming and content that brings communities together, but as audiences and advertising move online, the financial pressures on these broadcasters are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Just look at the BBC. From finding out who is voted off at the roundtable on “The Traitors” to listening to the shipping forecast, and from tuning in to 24/7 news coverage to watching educational content, the BBC is a quintessentially British service, loved and relied on by millions across the country. That vital public service, however, is under significant financial pressure, as made clear by the recent cuts to the BBC workforce and many of its much-loved programmes.

As a former Reuters journalist, I firmly believe in the mission of public service broadcasters such as the BBC. It should be celebrated and protected. It is welcome that the Green Paper recognises the importance of prominence for these unique services, but what is missing is a clear commitment to protecting the BBC itself—its independence, universal availability and ability to remain a properly resourced public service broadcaster. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a permanent BBC charter to enshrine the BBC’s core mission and mandate for generations to come. Do the Government agree that the core principles of the BBC must be protected in a permanent charter?

Another key matter for us in the Green Paper is the Government’s proposed transition from digital terrestrial television. The Green Paper sets out two possible deadlines—2034 or 2044—for switching off Freeview, with digital terrestrial television guaranteed only until the end of 2034. On that, we Liberal Democrats completely disagree with the right hon. Member for Maldon. I represent a very rural constituency, and I can tell the House that it is the most reliable and, importantly, free way in which people in my constituency and across the UK watch television. Today, 12.9 million homes use terrestrial television, including around 2.6 million that rely on it exclusively. In fact, more than a quarter of all television viewing in the United Kingdom last year was through Freeview digital terrestrial television. It is the single most popular way for viewers to access programming. It disproportionately serves older people, people on lower incomes and people in rural areas—precisely the groups least likely to have reliable broadband.

The right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) focused on people who live in canal boats, but there are hundreds of thousands of homes across the country, thousands of them in my constituency, that still do not have a reliable wi-fi connection today, and 6% of adults in the UK lack any home internet access at all. The hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) made an extremely valuable point about the need for terrestrial TV when communities are navigating any kind of storms, floods or other natural disasters.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

In my constituency, more than a quarter of households failed to receive speeds of more than 30 megabits per second, and 11 of our 15 local areas rank among the worst-performing 10% nationally. Does the hon. Lady agree that a delay to the switch-off would afford remote coastal households enough time to adapt?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I am deeply concerned about what it means for some of us in the rural south-west, as there are villages that will never get fast broadband. Setting a switch-off date without first closing this gap risks cutting off the communities that the Green Paper says it wants to protect.

We are also concerned by the cost implications for commercial radio. If it is lost, we will reduce the plurality in our media landscape. If we move to an internet-only model before universal broadband is genuinely in place, we do not just inconvenience households; we risk isolating them from local democracy, local information and local culture altogether. For my constituents, that is the difference between staying connected to what is happening in their community and being cut off from it entirely. We cannot ask people to give up a service that works today in exchange for a promise of connectivity that has not yet arrived.

We have already seen the Government water down their commitment on superfast broadband. It was initially promised that there would be next-generation gigabit broadband for every home by 2030, but at the spending review in June last year, the Government changed their target to 99% of premises having access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032, so it is getting slower already. Contracts delivering superfast broadband have been scaled back in the past, after only those areas that were easiest to reach were connected. The Minister will therefore have to forgive me for being less than confident that we will have universal broadband by the sooner deadline of 2034. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will refrain from any Freeview switch-off until every household, including in hard-to-reach rural constituencies like mine, has reliable wi-fi in place? Can he give my constituents that promise today?

Culture, Media And Sport

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), on securing this important debate on sport and youth services. The debate is timely because it coincides with the world cup and Wimbledon—and yes, like other hon. and right hon. Members, I will be hiding behind a sofa somewhere on the estate from 5 pm tomorrow for the England match. It is also timely because it coincides with the recent publication of the Milburn report and this week’s findings from the Children’s Commissioner that show a 10% rise in children and young people’s referrals to mental health services over the past year.

For too long, sport and youth services have been an afterthought for Government. As many hon. Members have already said, young people need space and the opportunity to express themselves, and they need trusted role models and structure in their lives. Both sports and youth services give them the chance to discover their talents and build their confidence, as well as helping them improve their mental and physical health. Yet the Milburn report showed that failing to invest in prevention carries through into poorer education and employment outcomes. If we want happy, healthy, hopeful and productive adults, we must first invest in happy, healthy and hopeful children and young people.

I strongly support the Select Committee’s recommendations to hardwire two hours of physical education into the school week. PE is funded largely by the Department for Education, with some support from the Department of Health and Social Care—although we know that there has recently been a tussle between the two over funding. The resulting announcement saw annual funding for PE slashed by a staggering 22% under the Government’s new PE and School Sport Partnerships Network, with primary schools hit the hardest. The cuts are being rushed through mid-year, leaving teachers, parents and sports co-ordinators scrambling.

That comes at the worst possible moment. In England, 2.1 million young people do less than 30 minutes’ physical activity a day and only 57% of teachers say their schools deliver the recommended two hours of PE each week. Sky’s “Game Changing” report estimates a participation gap between girls and boys in secondary school of a staggering 280,000,000 hours of sport per year. If we want to see many more years of Lionesses and Red Roses lifting trophies, we need to invest in the next generation now, through sport both in school and in our communities. Cutting budgets at a time when children need them most—when they are spending more time in front of their screens, as we have just heard—is incomprehensible.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Teachers and parents in South Devon are worried about the future of PE following funding cuts. Many areas already have successful school sports partnerships, with schools pooling their premium and working with organisations such as Active Partnerships. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to clarify whether schools can build on existing relationships, with those partnerships continuing to operate under the new system, or will they all be forced to start from scratch?

[Munira Wilson]

Partnerships are valuable, of course, and I do not oppose the Government’s approach, but the overall funding envelope is declining and being spread across both primary and secondary schools. This is resulting in a real-terms cut in the sports that are, as we are hearing from both sides of the House, so important to our children’s wellbeing and health.

Moving on to grassroots sports more broadly, with Sport England losing its function as a statutory planning consultee, it is hard to see how the Government’s aim of promoting healthy communities can be met when facility provision is declining due to closures, ageing infrastructure and uneven availability. Local authorities are trying their best, but they need help. The Udney Park playing fields in Teddington in my constituency have been lying dormant for over a decade, land banked by developers and out of reach for the local community, who are crying out for additional pitch space. This is not just limited to my constituency. London Sport told the Select Committee that it had had to look at running sports activities in car parks, empty shops and libraries because of the massive disinvestment in parks, leisure and community centres and youth services.

As this debate also covers youth services, I want to briefly touch on that, if I may. Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for a fair, long-term funding settlement to support youth work, resources and infrastructure, so we very much welcome the Government’s national youth strategy, and particularly their promise to introduce multi-year funding settlements. However, we need them to deliver on that promise. Earlier this year, the YMCA reported that spending on youth services by local authorities in England and Wales fell by 10% in a single year, the largest annual reduction since 2016-17.

We know that, as well as improving educational outcomes, youth services provide the relational infrastructure that prevents disengagement from becoming entrenched, protects our vulnerable young people and creates a sense of belonging. I have seen for myself what that investment can achieve at the WEST Youth Zone in London, where there are over 30 activities every evening serving a very disadvantaged community. I was told that if those young people did not have that space, they would be in their bedrooms on their phones all the time.

In conclusion, as investment in youth services has fallen, spending on youth justice has risen. We need to focus on prevention, whether through youth services or sport, and we hope that the Government’s rhetoric will be matched by investment and a commitment to delivery.

Animal Testing

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with everything the hon. Member said. I will go on to say more about that.

The petition refers specifically to dogs, as well as other animals that are used in testing. In 2024, 2.64 million procedures in British laboratories used animals—every minute of every day, five animals are used in research in the United Kingdom—over 16,000 experiments were carried out on specially protected species, including cats, dogs, horses and monkeys, and 1,651 dogs were used in experiments.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The hon. Member is being very generous with her time. Dogs have noticeable physiological differences from humans—different enzymes, different gastric pH—which leads to the vast majority of drugs that are tested on them failing to translate to humans. Does she agree, therefore, that the Government should commit to ending the use of dogs, specifically, in testing for human use and provide greater funding for alternatives that are coming through, such as organs on chips?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything the hon. Member said. I will speak more about organ on a chip and the need to move more quickly towards phasing out animals in research, but there is an opportunity to phase out dogs almost immediately.

It is important to note that figures released in the Home Office annual reports cover only animals protected by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and that individual animals can be used many times in different tests. However, the statistics count only the first time an animal is used in an experiment. The real number of experiments every year is likely much higher, as that data is not captured.

UK law, in the form of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, already recognises what we all know: that animals have emotions and feelings. The suffering caused to animals subjected to testing is a clear ethical problem, and the effectiveness of the experiments also calls into question the need for the obvious suffering, torture and painful death that many of them endure. Over 92% of drugs fail in human clinical trials after passing animal trials, and the failure rate increases to 99.6% for Alzheimer’s disease drugs. To quote Animal Free Research UK:

“Animals like monkeys don’t naturally develop Alzheimer’s, or live long enough to study ageing in the same way that humans experience it, so these outdated methods are simply not giving us the answers we need.”