Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg—particularly after last night’s result at Anfield, which will make you a happy Chair this morning. I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing it and on the way in which he delivered his remarks.
It is worth saying that my hon. Friend is an outstanding Member for his constituency. If I had a pound for every time he has mentioned Peterborough in the House of Commons or to Ministers, lobbying on behalf of his constituency, I would almost be able to afford the train fare from Edinburgh to Peterborough to come and visit all the wonderful things he spoke about. He mentioned the “Doctor Who” exhibition there, but the person who is regenerating Peterborough is my hon. Friend himself—if that is not too outlandish a “Doctor Who” pun. Like my hon. Friend, my thoughts are with those affected by the horrific events over the weekend in his county.
I welcome my hon. Friend’s desire for better access to heritage, in particular those close to home: the Flag Fen archaeology park and Must Farm. Flag Fen was discovered during the extensive fenland survey supported by the Government’s arm’s length body Historic England, known as English Heritage at the time. Flag Fen was discovered when lead archaeologist Francis Pryor tripped on a piece of wood lying in a drainage ditch. That would lead to the discovery of more than 60,000 timbers, arranged in five long rows to create a unique historical wooden causeway across the fenland, constructed around 3,500 years ago. It is hard to believe that, without those efforts, the site might never have been discovered—indeed, if most of us had tripped over a piece of wood, it would have led to a few expletives, rather than to such a discovery.
The significance of the Flag Fen site was officially recognised through its designation by Government as a scheduled monument, which recognises the site as nationally important and provides statutory protection. I share my hon. Friend’s horror at the two recent incidents of arson at Flag Fen, but I am pleased that Historic England’s work to tackle heritage crimes continues to go from strength to strength, in partnership with the police, other authorities and a range of other stakeholders, including a growing number of local authorities. I am pleased that Cambridgeshire county council is among the leading local authorities in looking at heritage crime.
It is important that we can all experience and enjoy the heritage that surrounds us, which forms the backbone of our shared national story. One of the priorities of the Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to create richer lives with choices and opportunities for all, including by increasing access to heritage and culture. My hon. Friend mentioned that in his speech, and I know that learning and educational experience is close to his heart.
I am therefore delighted that Historic England is working in partnership with Flag Fen archaeology park, Peterborough city council and the University of Cambridge on a strategic plan to increase access to and economic development for the site. That plan will include new opportunities for archaeological investigation, engagement with local communities and learning programmes for younger people. It will create an immersive and enjoyable visitor experience for a wider audience, and physically connect more audiences to Flag Fen through improved transport links. Since the discovery of Flag Fen, Historic England has given it more than £530,000 and will continue to work with that important site so that many future generations can benefit from and be custodians of it.
Cambridgeshire is also home of the famous Must Farm site at Whittlesey in East Anglia, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay). That is of international importance and provides an incredible snapshot in time of sophisticated bronze-age domestic life.
Ian Murray
I do not know whether that is a reference to the site itself or to the right hon. Gentleman—we are about to find out.
Steve Barclay
I pay tribute to my Cambridgeshire colleague, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), for securing this debate. I am grateful that the Minister draws out that distinction. Must Farm, the 3,000-year-old settlement dubbed the “Pompeii of the fens”, is in Fenland in my constituency, yet the funding always seems to go to Peterborough next door. Some of that is logical, but will he clarify what share of this funding will go to Fenland residents so that they can benefit from a discovery in their local authority area?
Ian Murray
I will get back to the right hon. Gentleman with the specifics of the funding. On funding more generally, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised, we know that these are tough times for local authorities, which have been massively underfunded since 2010. There is a requirement to prioritise heritage, of which we are custodians for today and tomorrow—we want to pass it on to future generations. We need to work with the National Lottery Heritage Fund to make up the difference for local authorities. We should encourage local authorities to work together to ensure that everyone benefits.
The Secretary of State’s commitment to ensuring that there are arts and heritage for all, right across the country, should answer some of those questions, but I will write to the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire on the specific issues he raised. In general terms, we are very much committed to ensuring that all our heritage sites, and the custodians of them, are well funded. He mentioned that there was a sudden fire, earning the site the nickname “Britain’s Pompeii”. It boasts extensive structural remains and a range of material, giving us an insight into the way people lived nearly 3,000 years ago. This is a great advert for it, and people should go and see it: the circle of wooden houses are believed to be the best-preserved bronze-age dwellings ever found in Britain, and a further nine immaculately preserved longboats were discovered and excavated there in 2011. They range from the bronze to the iron age. The site is very much something that people should visit to educate themselves.
The major excavation, which took place almost a decade ago, was funded by Historic England and the landowner, Forterra. It received about £1.42 million of funding. The project won several archaeological awards, including rescue project of the year at the 2017 Current Archaeology awards, and best archaeological discovery at the 2012 British archaeological awards—snappily titled awards for that project.
I recognise the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough about the shortage of archaeological and heritage skills. That is a priority for the Minister for Heritage, Baroness Twycross. Such skills are essential to maintaining the fabric of these important sites. Baroness Twycross held a skills roundtable in July and is working to understand how the sector can benefit from a range of entry routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough raised skills with the Department, and this morning I have asked my officials to look at whether universities are producing enough archaeologists. In the last two days, I was at the informal meeting of EU Culture Ministers in Copenhagen, and the Cypriot Culture Minister raised her concern about the pipeline of British archaeologists. Places such as Cyprus rely on the archaeological expertise of the United Kingdom in preserving their own heritage. I will get back to my hon. Friend with more details as that progresses.
Earlier this month, the Prime Minister announced the 75 recipients of the £20 million museum renewal fund. I was delighted that Peterborough city council was awarded £168,000, part of which will help Peterborough Museum and Art Gallery display the world-famous Must Farm bronze-age collections. Everyone should go and see them when they are displayed.
My Department is responsible for designating heritage assets through listed buildings and scheduling monuments so that they are protected in law for future generations. In total, Cambridgeshire is home to 59 scheduled bronze-age monuments, mostly bronze-age burial mounds. The most recent is the remains of the Money Hill round barrow cemetery, which was scheduled only last month as a monument. I am delighted that the future of Money Hill is now secured through collaboration between Historic England and East West Rail, another stakeholder, demonstrating how effective planning discussions can ensure that development and heritage protections stand side by side. That is something that we are keen to protect.
The neighbouring city of Peterborough is home to a further 23 scheduled bronze-age monuments, including Flag Fen. Preserving and maintaining the rich heritage of Cambridgeshire, or any region across the country, poses challenges, many of which were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. In addition to the previously mentioned funding, the Government and their arm’s length bodies, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic England and others, have provided many millions to ensure the safety, maintenance and preservation of not only the region’s bronze-age heritage, but all of Cambridgeshire’s invaluable heritage assets.
Since the founding of the National Lottery Heritage Fund in 1994, it alone has awarded £153 million to 897 projects within the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough combined authority boundaries, which shows the huge importance of that fund. That money has gone towards projects such as Peatland Progress, which received £8.8 million towards uniting the north and south halves of the Great Fen to safeguard biodiversity and support the region’s natural heritage. This Government are committed to ensuring the protection of our wonderful heritage and creating an inclusive national story that reflects the lives of extraordinary people from extraordinary places all over the country.
Local heritage is a powerful storyteller, defining who we are and forming the essential cornerstone of our communities. The Government strongly believe in supporting communities to celebrate and adapt the heritage buildings they value, ensuring that they remain as relevant today as they will be tomorrow. Earlier this year, to mark the 60th anniversary of the first arts White Paper, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a massive £270 million investment to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector nationwide.
Chris Hinchliff
While the Minister is talking about the brilliant work that the Government are doing nationally to protect and preserve our heritage, can I encourage him to welcome the fact that the now Labour-run North Herts council is choosing to prioritise investment in our museum storage, so that we can preserve our bronze-age heritage and local heritage more widely?
Ian Murray
I commend the local authority for that investment. Indeed, this subject comes up regularly; we had an Adjournment debate in the Chamber a few weeks ago on heritage in the east of England, and many of the comments were about how we protect those collections and show them to the public. What museums are doing across the country to give access to those collections is something that we should support to ensure that not only are they preserved, but that people can see them, enjoy them and gain education and knowledge from them.
As part of the investment, we announced in August that 37 historic buildings and sites in areas most in need will receive much-needed restoration and repair funding through the heritage at risk capital scheme, including Laurel Court in Peterborough, where funding will secure the building ahead of further renovation. We are also empowering local groups to own the heritage assets they treasure through the heritage revival fund, providing nearly £5 million through the architectural heritage fund to breathe new life into communities by repurposing historic buildings to meet present needs. In that way the past is preserved, and the buildings are used for the future.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for securing this debate and providing me with the opportunity to discuss the importance of bronze-age heritage, and the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing all our shared heritage. Like my hon. Friend, I encourage more people to visit these historic sites and celebrate the history of Cambridgeshire. From the international significance of Must Farm to the local treasure of Flag Fen, it is important not only to honour our bronze-age heritage, but to recognise the positive impact that these sites have on the local and national community in the present. As a Government, and as citizens, we are custodians of our heritage for future generations to enjoy and learn from. We are committed as a Government to making sure that that very heavy responsibility is met fully.
Question put and agreed to.
UK Newspapers: Foreign State Influence Regulations
Ian Murray Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
This Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape, where citizens are able to access information from a range of sources in order to form opinions. The public’s ability to access a wide range of news, views and information about the world in which we live is central to the health of our democracy. It is vital that the UK has in place strong measures to protect this, including the foreign state influence regime, which ensures foreign states cannot control or influence UK newspapers or news periodicals.
In July 2025, the Government made affirmative regulations to allow foreign state-owned investors, or SOIs, to hold up to 15% of shares and voting rights in a UK newspaper owner, provided they are passive investors with no right or ability to appoint directors or other company officers of the newspaper owner, or to control or influence the newspaper owner’s policy, directly or indirectly. We introduced this 15% cap to balance the need to protect the sector from foreign state influence with the need for newspapers to be able to access new investment from a range of sources if they are to remain sustainable and innovate for the future.
Today we are publishing the Government response to the public consultation on the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) (No. 2) Regulations 2025. This consultation ran from 16 July to 16 September 2025, and sought views on draft regulations which proposed to apply a 15% cap on aggregate holdings of shares or voting rights in a newspaper owner by SOIs acting on behalf of foreign powers of different countries.
The consultation also proposed that SOIs acquiring more than 5% of shares or voting rights in a UK newspaper owner directly must give the Secretary of State a qualifying notification within 14 days of the acquisition being made.
This legislation responds to concerns heard in Parliament about the remote risk that multiple SOIs, acting on behalf of different states, could each be able to hold up to 15%, resulting in a significant percentage of a UK newspaper being owned by foreign states.
The consultation response confirms that the regulations will introduce a 15% limit on the total shares or voting rights which may be held in a newspaper, directly or indirectly, by SOIs acting on behalf of any foreign power of any country or territory, and will introduce the notification requirement. In addition, they will introduce a requirement for SOIs which acquire a direct holding of more than 5% and must notify the Secretary of State of their investment, also to publish appropriate details about their investment on a website within the 14 day timeframe. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport commits to report to Parliament regularly on the details that SOIs have published about their investments pursuant to the regulations. We will endeavour for this to be every six months.
The draft regulations making changes to the foreign state influence regime have been laid before Parliament today.
[HCWS1009]
Draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
Ian Murray Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.
Ian Murray
The Media Act 2024 received Royal Assent on 24 May 2024 and made much-needed changes to the regulation of public service broadcasting, which was last substantively updated in 2003. Since then, internet access and streaming services have fundamentally changed how audiences access content. The changes introduced by the Media Act are vital to ensuring that our public service broadcasters—PSBs—have the flexibility to serve audiences across the UK with high-quality programmes on a wide range of services. The Department has already begun the process of bringing into force the provisions of the Act, which will modernise the UK’s system of public service broadcasting. These statutory instruments form part of that implementation work, specifically in relation to the PSB quotas and the quota system.
As Members may be aware, each PSB operates under a compact, which is an exchange of benefits and obligations. The benefits include guaranteed access to spectrum and prominence on TV guides, and the obligations include quotas, which are quantitative obligations placed on a channel to make and/or broadcast a specified amount of content, such as news and current affairs programmes. Quotas are an important regulatory tool to ensure that PSBs produce an appropriate range of content that is relevant to the country and their viewers.
The draft instruments relate to three PSB quota obligations. The first is the independent productions quota, which requires PSBs to commission a certain amount of programming from independent producers, which are a key part of the broadcasting and TV production ecosystem. The second is the original productions quota, which requires PSBs to broadcast programmes they have commissioned directly, rather than programmes acquired from others. The third is the regional and national productions quota, which places requirements on public service broadcasters regarding the proportion of programmes made outside London, as well as the proportion of expenditure on making programmes outside London.
Currently, the quotas can be delivered only by a PSB’s designated linear channel, such as BBC One, BBC Two or ITV1. In 2020, Ofcom’s previous public service media review, “Small Screen: Big Debate”, concluded that the PSB system, including the quotas, was in need of modernisation. When fully commenced, the Media Act will permit the delivery of PSB quotas via a wide range of other services, including on-demand services such as iPlayer and ITVX, which reflects changes in technology, consumer behaviour and increased competition from on-demand services. The Act also amends the regulatory regime to convert the existing percentage quota to a number-of-hours quota so that it can apply to on-demand programming as well as just the linear channels. The regulations simply introduce the necessary technical tweaks required to implement the changes in the Media Act.
The snappily named draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 will amend the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to update relevant defined terms to align with the changes made by the Media Act— I hope the shadow Minister is following this. The regulations also confer powers on Ofcom concerning the treatment of repeats in relation to both original and regional and national productions.
Meanwhile, the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025 will revoke and replace the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991 to update relevant terminology, as set out in the Media Act, and to set the level of the modernised independent productions quota for each PSB. In case anyone is not awake and following this, it will be repeated on BBC Two.
The Media Act gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a minimum number of hours for the purposes of the independent production quota for each public service broadcaster. The new modernised quota for each PSB is set out in schedule 1 to the Act, which every member of the Committee has. Given that our public service broadcasters generally outperform their independent production quotas every year, our ambition is to replicate the effect of the existing, non-modernised quota, and to ensure that the quota itself remains fit for purpose and operable for on-demand services. It should be noted that the percentage quota that applies to non-PSBs will remain unchanged.
I will quickly mention the role of the regulator, Ofcom. While the Secretary of State sets the minimum level of the independent productions quota, the task of setting the level of the original and the regional and national productions quotas is delegated to Ofcom itself. Given that Ofcom is responsible for setting the level of these quotas, it was decided that Ofcom should also determine, as part of that process, the treatment of repeats in those areas. This was done to ensure that decisions made about the level of the public service broadcasters’ quotas, and how many times programmes can contribute to them, make operational sense. The regulations therefore require Ofcom to determine whether repeats may be counted towards the original and regional productions quotas.
Furthermore, Ofcom has also been given the power to determine the types of content that can count towards the original productions quota. Ofcom leads this process and has been consulting stakeholders on their terminology and methodology for determining the appropriate levels of the quotas, as well as the treatment of repeats. Ofcom will also continue to be responsible for monitoring the delivery of PSB quotas, as set out in the PSBs’ licences and in agreement with S4C. It will shortly begin the licence variation process to amend the quota conditions in the PSB licences of Channels 3, 4 and 5, which will need to account for these changes to the PSBs’ quotas.
The PSBs play a vital role in the UK TV sector and produce high-quality public service content that audiences across the UK value very much. We know that, in a lot of cases, PSBs routinely surpass their quotas, so these regulations are primarily designed to give them the tools to deliver the quotas where the audiences are actually watching the programmes.
The Government are aware that the media landscape is going through a period of rapid change due to shifts in viewing habits, which poses both opportunities and challenges for PSBs. That is why we are getting on with implementing the Media Act, which delivers important reforms to support the future sustainability of our public service broadcasters. This includes bringing forward these draft regulations for debate today, and I commend them both to the Committee.
Ian Murray
These regulations are a small part of a much larger piece of ongoing work within the Department and Ofcom to implement the entire Media Act. That work has cross-party support, and we are looking to take it forward. Ofcom, the public service broadcasters and the Government—including the previous Government—have all been working together to make sure we can get these regulations right for the industry.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT BROADCASTING (INDEPENDENT PRODUCTIONS) REGULATIONS 2025.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025.—(Ian Murray.)
Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025
Ian Murray Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025.
It is a great pleasure to serve with you as referee this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I am pleased to speak to the regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 October. This Committee is scheduled for 90 minutes, but I am hopeful that we will take only till half time, if not before—I might get an early bath. The puns probably will not stop there. Given the tight scope of the regulations, there is time for me to mention only one football club, which is Heart of Midlothian, who are currently eight points clear at the top of the Scottish Premier League thanks to a 3-1 win over Celtic on Sunday. That will keep everyone in Edinburgh—or certainly the bigger half of it—happy.
Back in July, the Government delivered on our election pledge to set up an Independent Football Regulator through the passing of the Football Governance Act 2025. The regulator is designed to protect football clubs in England only, to empower fans and to keep clubs at the heart of their communities. The regulator is the first of its kind and reflects the important and special place of football in our society and every single one of our communities. It will provide the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth so that English football continues to be the global success that it is.
We did not specify in the Act the clubs and competitions that will be within the scope of the regulator. This is in line with how other sports legislation works and will ensure that the regulator is able to react to any changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner. That is a really important point for the Committee to consider. For example, without the regulations the regime could not readily adapt to the restructuring or renaming of leagues, as in 1992 when the First Division became the Premier League, or in 2015 when the Football Conference was renamed the National League—that is the fifth tier of English football. That decision was made in the Act because, as we know, it is quicker and easier to amend legislation through delegated powers than through primary legislation.
During the Bill’s passage, there was much discussion about the scope of the regulator, across both Houses. The competitions within scope of the legislation are the same as Tracey Crouch’s 2021 fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government in 2024— I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to that. The statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The scope is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including in the independent fan-led review. I thank everyone who corresponded with the previous Government on that review and, of course, Tracey Crouch for taking it forward.
The issues that concern the regulator, such as financial mismanagement, unsuitable owners and the distribution of revenue among leagues, are most prevalent and stark in the top five professional leagues of English men’s football. We do not believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate, and the burdens on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of the regulations.
On the possibility of the women’s game being within the scope of the regulator, Karen Carney led an independent review of domestic women’s football that was published in July 2023. Her review recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate rather than moving immediately to statutory regulation. The Government support that recommendation. The systemic financial issues that led to the creation of the legislation for the men’s game are not mirrored in the women’s game, which is at a different stage of development and growth, and we do not feel it is necessary to include it within the scope at this stage.
However, the Government acknowledge that the circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act, to be conducted within five years of the commencement of the licensing regime, will look again at the scope to include women’s football if necessary. The Secretary of State can carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope, and would consult the regulator itself, the Football Association and other stakeholders as appropriate.
This statutory instrument is another important step in the overall set-up and commencement of the Independent Football Regulator. For too long, football clubs have been mismanaged, been run by unsuitable owners, and not listened to fans. The Government are changing that today.
Ian Murray
I will start where my hon. Friend finished. The whole point of the Football Regulator and this statutory instrument is to give power back to the fans, for the very specific reasons that he talks about at Sheffield Wednesday. We could all reel off a dozen clubs that have fallen into problems because of ownership in recent history, including Bury, Derby, Bolton, Morecambe and Blackpool. A whole host of clubs have fallen into problems because of the way they were run.
Football is a magnet for people who want to invest their money, but it has also become a magnet for people who think they can make some money out of it. Indeed, for many, it is an ego trip. I would maybe even argue that in the case of my own Heart of Midlothian football club, it was a money laundering exercise for the Russian oligarch who held it before. The common thread is that it is the fans who pay the price. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said exactly the same thing in talking about how our football clubs are at the heart of our communities.
Before the club went into administration, many Sheffield Wednesday fans would have been completely bereft at the thought of a Saturday afternoon coming along when they would not have to commiserate with each other that Sheffield Wednesday had lost again, at not being able to celebrate the highs as well as the lows, and at having their lives without Sheffield Wednesday. Any football fan will completely appreciate that the fans are the lifeblood of the game. It is famously said that the game is nothing without the fans.
The principle behind the Football Regulator—a principle that the shadow Minister used to share—is that football is for the fans, and the fans have in some circumstances have been taken for granted, as we have just heard. That is the whole point of this draft statutory instrument. It is defined in scope, but I am glad, Ms Lewell, that you allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East to make those points slightly wider than scope, because it shows that this is needed in football. Having the Premier League, the Championship, League One and League Two, and the National League as the feeder league into the top four leagues, as part of that is important. They are all covered.
I appreciate—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned this, I am sure in the spirit of the game—that this will burden some smaller clubs in the National League with additional responsibilities when they should be running the football club, training the kids and making sure they can have the Harry Kanes of the future—whoever that is. The bottom line, however, is that the National League is feeding the major leagues, and it needs to be part of this to make sure that those clubs are properly run and properly resourced, because it is about sustainability. A sustainable pyramid makes the whole pyramid much stronger.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked if there would be a review. There will be—a review is written into the Act, on the face of the primary legislation. On three up, three down, that is a matter for the footballing authorities and the game itself to resolve, but the strength of the three up, three down argument could be enhanced by having a structure in the National League to mean that the clubs have fit and proper owners, are properly run and are in compliance with the Football Regulator. The regime is very much a light-touch one, and it is important to see that through the lens of not just new owners, but existing owners, looking at football as a whole in those top five leagues in England.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues around the chair of the new Football Regulator. I was delighted that the chair was endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It was really important that that was done. Now the regulator can get on with doing the work, as things have been going on for too long.
I am not sure where the Opposition were coming from, because the Act is in essence their legislation. We made a few tweaks to it along the way, and the other place made a few more, and attempted some major tweaks. It is stuff that the shadow Minister used to agree with. In fact, his party made arguments in the past about how important the Football Governance Act would be for football and for sustainability in football, putting the power back in the supporters’ hands where it should lie. Now they say they are not keen on it and that it will jeopardise football: I am not sure what their angle is. Fans across the country will wonder why the previous Government, who introduced this regime through the Tracey Crouch review, are now standing wholeheartedly against it.
The Chair
Order. I have allowed some kickabout in the debate, but can we please stick to the legislation before us?
Ian Murray
I will take your guidance, Ms Lewell. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, I will say that when the Opposition lose the argument, they do not take the ball, they take the man. I think that that is what we are seeing.
Mr French
A strange dynamic is going on here: we seem to be pretending that the Secretary of State and the chairman of the new Football Regulator are not under investigation. That is what is happening. That is not my investigation; that is an investigation that is taking place. That brings the whole regulator into question, and its independence. That is the point.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member is aware that that is not in the scope of the draft statutory instrument before us.
Ian Murray
The chairman of the new regulator declared his donations before the said CMS Committee, which endorsed his chairmanship.
Implementing this regime to help to protect clubs in financial peril and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first is a priority for this Government. It was a priority for the previous Government as well, and it has been lost. That is why work is under way to deliver the next phase of the Independent Football Regulator regime as quickly as possible. Defining the exact scope of the Independent Football Regulator is a key step in delivering that.
The IFR will need time to get fully up and running. The newly appointed CEO, chair and board members need to build up the staff, continue to consult the industry, work with fans and football clubs and understand the new requirements. The regulator will have heard the shadow Minister’s comments about the burdens on smaller clubs from the National League, and I hope it takes that on board. I am sure that there will be support for that to happen. This Government look forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to deliver the remaining secondary legislation required to enact the Independent Football Regulator’s key powers later this year.
In conclusion, people who support football clubs that are not a global product, whether they are in Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, or just go along to their local school pitch on a Saturday morning to watch their eight-year-old kick a ball around, are the lifeblood of football. This is about making sure that the game is sustainable. Let us never, ever have a situation where Government stand on the opposite side of the road while great clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, which are the lifeblood of our communities, go to the wall.
Question put.
Mandatory Digital ID
Ian Murray Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for his speech. It was a very good speech, but suffered from the big disadvantage of none of it being actually accurate in terms of what the policy is and what digital ID is supposed to be about.
Let me start by saying—I mean this seriously and I mean it passionately in my defence of Parliament and Government—that it is okay to debate these things. There is a huge number of people in Westminster Hall today who want to debate this subject. An hour may not be enough, and no doubt we will come back to these issues on several occasions. But there is something that is really important. There is a real task for us all to do as custodians of democracy, which is to have this debate from the perspective of the facts that are out there and not to peddle myths.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said clearly in an intervention that all we have heard is the myths. I hope I can bust some of those myths to give comfort to some of our constituents that this scheme is not what is being portrayed by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and what we have heard in many of the contributions. We have a real responsibility to make sure that we have proper debates—with the facts, not with what we read on social media.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Minister says that we are “custodians of democracy”. On the back of that, and in the light of his comments, I ask this: will the Government commit to a direct vote in the House, a free vote on the digital ID scheme before it is rolled out and becomes mandatory in any form? The public and their elected representatives deserve clarity and choice.
Ian Murray
A full consultation will be launched by the end of this year. There are two options that the Government could have taken. We could have started from the position of a fully fledged programme, a fully fledged policy, and then taken that out to consultation; or we could take the approach that we are doing at the moment, which is to go out to consultation after we have had some initial consultation with people, so that the formal consultation is shaped by people’s views and the concerns that they raise.
I will give two examples, which are from the island of Ireland and from Northern Ireland and in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement. These are things that have to be resolved. We now know they are big issues, and that will go into the consultation to try to resolve them. We cannot have it both ways. We have chosen to take this particular approach in order to develop a consultation—
Ian Murray
Let me make some progress and I will give way. I want to read Members this paragraph:
“We will develop and establish a trusted and secure service for users to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service. Users will be able to store their information and choose to share it when applying to public services. This will improve a user’s access to services by providing a safe and secure way to prove their identity, while reducing time and cost for the public sector. Additionally, we will develop an inclusive approach for all users to ensure that…services are available for”
all, particularly those who are digitally excluded. That is from the Scottish Government in 2021. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire’s own party as the Scottish Government is developing this; it is actually SNP policy.
Let me just bust some of the myths. This is not a Brit card. I know that members of the SNP like to call it a Brit card, because that is what gives them traction in the way in which they constitutionally do these things, but it is not a Brit card. And let me just deal with the issue about compulsion and mandation, because everyone stands up and calls this mandatory digital ID. It is not mandatory. That is the wrong thing to say to our constituents. It is not compulsory in this country to have a passport, but one is mandatory to travel. If someone wants to travel on a flight, even an internal flight, in this country, they require that ID to be able to travel. It is not compulsory to hold a passport, but it is mandatory to use one for travel. It is exactly the same in this particular instance. It is not compulsory to have one. People will not be asked to show it; they will not be asked to produce it. There is a whole host of use cases that would be voluntary—
Graham Leadbitter
The Prime Minister said that this was mandatory if people wanted to work in the UK, so for every single person who wants to work in the UK it is mandatory. Is that not pretty much a compulsory ID card?
Ian Murray
No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—
Ian Murray
Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.
Jim Shannon
How will the Minister and the Government react to the united political opposition from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, nationalist and Unionist, to the ID card? How can the Minister and the Government pursue something that is so unanimously opposed by everyone in Northern Ireland?
Ian Murray
Let me address that point directly. I have already been to Northern Ireland and spoken to all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I have also been to the Republic to speak to the Irish Government about the processes that they have. In fact, they are about to introduce a similar scheme, because all EU countries have to have a scheme up and running by 2026. We fully understand the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and nationality in Northern Ireland—that people can be British, Irish or both—and that will all have to be built into the system. As a Government, we have taken on board those legitimate concerns—not the myths. I have heard them directly from all parties in Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that those are resolved as part of the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the consultation to make sure that those are resolved.
Martin Wrigley
It is not much of a consultation if the Government have already said, very vocally, that they are going to do it. It is really a question of how hard they want to beat people.
Ian Murray
Of course it is a consultation. It is about how we get this right, what it looks like, how it is built, how federated data is secured, how we deal with digital inclusion and how we deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is what the consultation is about. It is about the Government learning from that. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but their own leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said on 21 September that “times have changed”, and that he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal Government had brought in digital ID. He said that if a system was
“giving individuals power to access public services”,
he could be in favour. Four days later, he said that
“the Liberal Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail”.
It is the same hypocrisy as the Scottish National party; it was their policy five days before they came out against it.
Victoria Collins
I would just highlight that what was stated was about the system being voluntary and about choice. We are saying that a mandatory system is a problem. Do this Government want to grow this economy or not? Do they want to give people who want to work a real choice? I do not see that at all.
Ian Murray
This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up.
Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—
Ian Murray
I do not have time.
The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions.
I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services.
The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Murray Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
As someone who used to manage a local band called Squeezebox when at university—available at all bad record stores—I understand that grassroots music is the lifeblood of the music industry. The Government have committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows and that money will be ploughed straight into the grassroots music sector. The Government are providing up to £30 million for the music growth package, which will provide further Government support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports.
Luke Taylor
Grassroots music venues across the country, particularly across London, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive as customers are spending less when they come to gigs because of the cost of living crisis. Will the Minister explain the progress on the levy? Will he consider the Lib Dem calls to reverse the national insurance rise on small businesses to give venues such as the Sound Lounge and the CryerArts Centre in Sutton, which are so valued by our local community, the best chance to survive and thrive?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman lays out the difficulties, of which there are many, for the live music sector and potentially the venues, many of them in his constituency. We want to see 50% of all ticket sales for stadium and arena shows in 2026 enter that music levy; that is this Government’s aspiration and we encourage all ticket providers to do so. In the autumn 2024 Budget, as he suggests, the Chancellor set out plans to transform the business rates system over this Parliament. Those reforms will provide certainty and support to businesses, including music venues. The Government have been engaging with the live music sector on business rates reforms and will set out further policy details in next month’s Budget.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his place and I look forward to working with him—I am delighted to hear that he is a keen musician. Since Brexit, British musicians’ European tours have dropped by around 9% year on year, as a mountain of bureaucracy blocks those hoping to cut their teeth on the European circuit. In Frome and East Somerset, I am lucky to have musicians who travel in Europe, but who will not have a team of people to do the paperwork for them. Will the Minister update us on what tangible steps have been taken for touring artists since the so-called reset deal, so that our musicians can take centre stage in Europe once more?
Ian Murray
Let me correct the record. I did not say that I was a musician; I said that I managed a band. I would not like that to be incorrectly recorded in Hansard. In any case, I thank the hon. Lady for the encouragement.
This matter is a priority for this Government to try and resolve. It was mentioned in the UK-EU reset summit agreement. We are working hard with the Paymaster General, who takes forward those negotiations. I am already in touch with the European Commissioner for culture. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will do everything we possibly can to get the agreement and the commitment over the line.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
On this issue, the Secretary of State met my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) in her role as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). In March 2025, my noble Friend the Minister for Heritage met the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble Friend Lord Khan of Burnley, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and church representatives, as well as visiting Salisbury cathedral and St Michael Le Belfrey in York.
Greg Smith
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but I am not sure the Government have understood the level of uncertainty and panic that has set in following their approach to this grant scheme. Some of the most cherished buildings in our constituencies are waiting on clarity for when the Government will come forward with concrete steps to extend this scheme. What will happen after March 2026? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us that clarity now.
Ian Murray
This is an incredibly serious issue, but the Conservatives did not allocate any funding for it at all when they were in government, and therefore we are left with the current situation. I reiterate to those who may wish to use the listed places of worship grant scheme that £13.7 million is left in that scheme. Grants are capped at £25,000, but the analysis from the Department is that 94% of all applications are unaffected by this change because most claims are under £5,000. There is plenty of money left in the pot for this year, and I would encourage them to use it.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
There is no specific duty on owners to keep their buildings in a good state of repair, but local authorities have powers under legislation to take action where a listed building may be at risk, through urgent works notices and repairs notices. The Government also support local authorities by providing funding for conservation projects, and they are consulting on reforms to make it easier for homeowners to protect their historic properties while preserving their unique character. There is also the buildings at risk register, and I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to her local authority to see what can be done to help,
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Ian Murray
This Government applaud and support the role that museums play in educating and inspiring audiences, including in Cornwall and across every part of the country in every Member’s constituency. Last week the Government announced that 75 museum groups around the country will benefit from an additional £20 million of funding as part of the museum renewal fund, delivered by Arts Council England. Together with our new £25 million investment in regional museums via the aptly named museum estate and development fund, which is to be announced in the new year, that represents a considerable show of support for local museums across the country, on top of the £44 million allocated by Arts Council England.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
You may be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that today is the launch of Peterborough tourist board, and our new Discover Peterborough website. That brings together our great attractions, such as our 900-year-old cathedral and our great museum, as well as the great outdoors such as Nene park and Flag Fen. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the formation of Discover Peterborough, and say what more she can do to support the visitor economy and great attractions in places such as mine?
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Ian Murray
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DCMS ministerial team and the entire Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is full access to training and skills in the arts. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that project, but if any young person in any part of this land wants to get into the arts, this Government are for them.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I understand from a number of people who work at the National Coal Mining Museum for England in Wakefield that unfortunately there is an intractable dispute there. My constituents have asked me to put two questions to the Minister. First, will she say how proud we are as a country that we have a national museum of coalmining to celebrate the history of the mines? Secondly, if necessary, will she seek to secure an agreement between the disagreeing parties at the museum?
Gaming Machines and Bingo Venues: Licensing Consultation
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling and DCMS Lords Minister, Baroness Twycross:
The family entertainment sector makes an important contribution to local communities, particularly in seaside towns, and bingo venues are a traditional cornerstone of the leisure sector enjoyed across the country. However, commercial pressures mean we have seen a number of closures of licensed family entertainment centres and bingo clubs in recent years. The Government are keen to explore ways to support both sectors, preserving the heritage of family-run amusement piers and bingo halls while supporting innovative and vibrant new offerings, and to ensure that the regulatory regime that applies to them is fit for purpose. Doing so will help to support our wider growth mission, and help to ensure a sustainable and socially responsible land-based gambling sector.
I therefore wish to inform the House that we have today published a consultation on category D gaming machines and licensing for bingo venues.
Stake and prize limits for category D gaming machines
Family entertainment centres predominantly site category D gaming machines. These are low-stakes machines, categorised by the Gambling Commission as suitable for under-18s to play, and include seaside staples such as crane grabs and penny pushers. Stakes and prizes for category D machines have not changed since 2014, while inflation has limited the ability of operators to offer appealing prizes. As this category encompasses a wide variety of machines, we are seeking views on maintaining or increasing current stake and prize limits, in order to support commercial sustainability and operator investment in venues housing category D machines. In line with this, we are also seeking feedback on proposals to adjust the sub-categories for certain category D machines, to reflect new game mechanics and distinguish machines that more closely resemble adult gambling activities from lower-risk games. This will ensure that any changes to stakes and prizes to support growth in the sector are underpinned by an appropriate and proportionate framework.
Age limit for “cash-out” slot-style category D machines
The Government are also consulting on an age limit for certain category D gaming machines. The Gambling Act review concluded that machines which mirror adult slot machines and pay out in cash—also known as cash-out slot-style category D machines—should not be available to children. Therefore, we are proposing to make it a criminal offence to invite, cause or permit anyone under the age of 18 to play these particular types of machines. This builds on the existing voluntary commitment implemented in 2021 by Bacta, the amusement and gaming machine industry trade body, banning under-18s from playing this type of machine in their members’ venues, by introducing the same protections across the whole sector.
Licensing for bingo venues
Recent years have seen change and innovation in the bingo sector: this includes new concepts combining bingo with nightlife, electronic terminals allowing customers to play on a tablet, and smaller premises emerging alongside traditional bingo clubs. While we are keen to support innovation and the continued popularity of bingo, there are a growing number of licensed bingo premises which predominantly site gaming machines and are difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres.
To support the sector and provide clarity for customers in the changing landscape of land-based gambling, the Government are seeking views on measures to create a clearer distinction between adult gaming centres and bingo premises. This will ensure that all premises have a licence type that is appropriate to their offering. The key proposal we are consulting on is requiring a “bingo area”. This would occupy a minimum proportion of venue floor space, in all licensed bingo venues, where customers can enjoy a bingo game, whether they play on paper or a tablet, in a linked or a local game. This will make bingo the primary option within such venues, protecting the offering to customers and supporting the industry. It will also close the loophole that permits the consumption of alcohol in machine-led venues, when this is prohibited in adult gaming centres. We are also consulting on rules for the bingo area, including prohibiting larger gaming machines and requiring a minimum number of positions for bingo.
I would encourage those in this House who care strongly about gambling policy, as well as relevant stakeholders, to share their views through this consultation. I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS964]
Building Digital UK: Integration into Department
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
Today I am announcing that Building Digital UK will be integrated into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology from 1 November 2025. BDUK is currently an executive agency of the Department and will become a directorate within the Digital Technologies and Infrastructure group.
This move comes following the Cabinet Office’s review into arm’s length bodies, launched in April. The decision continues DSIT’s growth into the UK Government’s Department of digital delivery, helping to accelerate innovation and drive economic growth across the country. It builds on the integration of other digital delivery bodies, including the Government Digital Service and the Central Digital and Data Office, into DSIT.
BDUK will continue to lead the delivery of the Government’s vital digital infrastructure programmes, Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. These programmes remain central to the Government’s plan for change and 10-year infrastructure strategy, supported by £1.9 billion of funding announced in the spending review.
Thanks to BDUK’s work, we have already achieved 85% gigabit broadband coverage across the UK, and 95% 4G coverage, meeting both these targets a year ahead of schedule.
Integrating BDUK into DSIT will ensure that its operational expertise is embedded at the heart of Government, enabling more effective delivery of digital infrastructure and supporting our wider ambition to accelerate innovation and drive economic growth across the UK.
We will work closely with staff, unions and stakeholders to manage the integration over the coming months.
[HCWS938]
Heritage Sites: East of England
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am pleased to respond to this Adjournment debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) on securing it and wish her a very happy Essex Day. That is something I never thought I would say from the Dispatch Box, but I wish everyone a happy Essex Day none the less.
As my hon. Friend laid out, the east of England has a unique and rich heritage. It is awash with nationally significant heritage assets such as the Iron Age neolithic flint mines at Grime’s Graves, Framlingham Castle and Tudor Lavenham, and historic houses such as Audley End House and Sandringham—and, of course, we heard about Knebworth House too. The region is also home to a rich Roman heritage, which is no more evident than in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Colchester, which is not only, as she said, Britain’s oldest recorded settlement, but the former Roman capital, with its iconic Roman circus. She called it “Ben-Hur” but in Essex—I am not quite sure what that film would be called, but perhaps we can leave that sticking to the wall, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for her work to preserve heritage in her constituency, including the grade II listed Balkerne water tower, which she also mentioned. I know that she has been involved in efforts to restore it and secure its future, and that exciting plans are in train. If there is anything the Department can do to help her with those plans, we stand ready to do so.
As my hon. Friend said, our local heritage tells the story of who we are and forms the cornerstone of our communities in the present in order to preserve the past. The Government are proud to support communities to celebrate the heritage buildings and assets they value and ensure that they can continue to meet their needs in the present and into the future.
Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State marked the 60th anniversary of the first ever arts White Paper and announced £270 million of funding to fix the foundations of our arts venues, museums, libraries and heritage sector in communities right across the country. That ambition is now starting to bear some fruit. My hon. Friend’s constituency has benefited directly from nearly £1.3 million of Arts Everywhere funding to protect Colchester castle for future generations, enabling urgent maintenance and roof repairs to ensure the landmark’s future.
Furthermore, I am pleased to say that, as announced in August, through the Government’s heritage at risk capital scheme, 37 much loved historic buildings and sites in the places across England that need it most will receive funding to support repairs and restoration. That much needed funding will breathe new life into our heritage and, in many cases, help turn it into vibrant spaces that our communities need today. Over £2 million of that funding is going to projects in the east of England, including £700,000 to bring Lowestoft’s derelict town hall back to life as a fully accessible public space with an art gallery, café and events venue, and £137,000 for the Iron Duke restoration project in Great Yarmouth, which my hon. Friend mentioned, bringing the building back into use and creating 50 much needed new jobs for the area.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I am really lucky in North West Cambridgeshire to represent a whole variety of heritage sites of different sizes, including Burghley House, which I visited recently—a 16th century stately home that welcomes thousands of visitors each year to the house itself and the gardens—and smaller sites such as John Clare Cottage, where the famous poet lived, the surroundings of which inspired so much of his poetry. As well as welcoming the local, national and international tourism to those sites, does the Minister agree that it is important that we support the educational work they do in respect of local history, agriculture and the natural environment?
Ian Murray
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is true: as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, our heritage is about our future, but it is also about learning about our past. It is good for social cohesion, but it is also tremendous for education, and Burghley House and the John Clare Cottage in North West Cambridgeshire play a vital role in that education. I am pleased to confirm that this year we continued Historic England’s Heritage Schools programme, which supports teachers to bring local heritage into teaching across the curriculum. I hope that that continues, because it is very much a passion of the Secretary of State and I; we really want to make sure that our heritage across the United Kingdom is shared by everyone. The Arts Everywhere project is so important for community cohesion and for young people’s learning about our history and shaping its future.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester set out, preserving and maintaining the rich heritage of this region or any region can be expensive and challenging. In addition to the funding that I have already mentioned, there have been many other interventions by the Government, the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England to make safe, to maintain and to preserve the region’s invaluable heritage assets. In 2023-24 alone, the National Lottery Heritage Fund gave £33.5 million for heritage in the east of England, including £13 million to Norwich castle, an iconic site in the city originally commissioned by William the Conqueror.
Thanks to sustained investment in our heritage, we are seeking seeing at-risk heritage sites removed from Historic England’s heritage at risk register. My hon. Friend said that that is the legacy that we should leave for future generations because we are custodians of our heritage. That is what the risk register is there for, and I am delighted to see that sites are being removed from the register because of that investment. The register gives an annual snapshot of the health of England’s valued historic buildings by identifying sites most at risk of loss due to neglect. It lists 427 entries in the east of England alone in 2024, but by working closely with partners and communities, 14 sites have been removed from the register, with £800,000 in grants being awarded for repairs to an additional 25 sites last year. We are making progress, and we are also making it easier for communities to take ownership of the heritage assets they love by providing nearly £5 million through the heritage revival fund delivered by the Architectural Heritage Fund.
In addition, we have changed the definition of an asset of community value to state clearly that heritage buildings are included in that, so that they can be assets for the community to take on. Maintaining our historic heritage does not necessarily mean preserving it in aspic as a relic of the past. In our towns and cities, old and new stand side by side, and our heritage has a key role to play in delivering the Government’s ambitious commitments to boost economic growth and build 1.5 million new homes alongside our existing heritage.
There are examples up and down the country where growth and development can co-exist with our wonderful heritage. A local example is Lexden Gardens, which is in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Colchester. That development, which will see the creation of 120 new homes on the former Essex county hospital site, includes the restoration of the grade-II listed main hospital, which has deep rooted heritage connections and significance to the local community. To support our ambitions, we are working across Government to streamline the planning system, including the role of Historic England as a statutory consultee, to ensure timely, expert advice that supports high-quality development. The Government remain committed to protecting historic assets and will ensure that any changes to the planning system do not remove the quality of advice or heritage safeguards.
My hon. Friend asked some questions. I think I have a few minutes to run through some of those. She asked whether we would address the issues with regards to enhancing the importance of heritage, culture and tourism within the ongoing devolution process in the east of England. I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been no change in position between the two papers that she cited. The Government remain committed to supporting local areas to deliver their own priorities, including widening access and participation to culture and heritage and harnessing their potential for community transformation and economic growth. The Department’s arm’s length bodies, such as Historic England, will continue to explore how to work in partnership with strategic authorities within the ongoing devolution process in the east of England.
My hon. Friend asked about the local heritage architecture and the possibility of restructuring the mighty starting gates of the circus based on designs of others elsewhere. It is an incredibly interesting project. My hon. Friend Baroness Twycross in the other place takes the heritage portfolio, so I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with her to discuss the project in detail. The scheduled monuments like the Roman circus are protected in the form they have been passed down to us by previous generations, but should a proposal come forward to reconstruct elements of the circus, as she has laid out, it would require careful consideration through the scheduled monument consent process. I understand Historic England continues to work with Colchester council on that exciting project.
My hon. Friend also asked about synergies in the Department’s responsibilities for cultural heritage and media. I agree that virtual and augmented reality have great potential to bring our heritage to life. In fact, through programmes like the Audience of the Future and the creative clusters, we have demonstrated the value that immersive reality can bring to all sorts of experiences, including museums and storytelling. If she wants to take that particular issue to Baroness Twycross as well when we arrange that meeting, that is something she would be very much interested in hearing about in terms of how augmented and virtual reality could create a real benefit to the people of Colchester and, indeed, the Roman castle site.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked whether the Government will create a dedicated regional heritage strategy for the east of England—one that can help shape the devolved strategy in itself. Our devolution reforms aim to put power back in the hands of local leaders and local people, and to support mayoral strategic authorities to lead strategies in the areas they want to prioritise to drive the change they want to see—I have no idea what that means either, but I think it basically means that the power of having the strategic authorities is from the grassroots up. Indeed, we should be working with our local councils, local members and the strategic authorities for that to happen. Again, Baroness Twycross would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and providing me with the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s commitment to protecting and enhancing our shared heritage. We will continue to invest in our heritage, to forge collaborative and collective partnerships and to approach development in a pragmatic way, ensuring that precious sites, many of which have been mentioned by hon. Members, such as the Roman circus and the Balkerne water towers, as well as sites in the east of England and beyond, are not only preserved but celebrated for generations to come. I look forward to seeing the ongoing positive impact of these heritage projects in Colchester and across the east of England as we continue to build a future where our rich history stands proudly alongside new growth opportunities in all our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Service Broadcasting Quotas System: Regulations
Ian Murray Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)
I am pleased to update the House that, following their publication in draft on 6 May 2025 on www.gov.uk, I can now confirm the following statutory instruments have today been laid in draft:
The Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025; and
The Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025
As set out in a statement made by DCMS Minister Stephanie Peacock to the House published on 6 May 2025, these draft instruments make the necessary updates to the PSB quotas system introduced by the Media Act 2024, which includes permitting the delivery of relevant quotas across a wider set of services—including PSB on-demand services. To make this operable, the regulations —once commenced—will replace certain percentage quotas with a requirement to make a minimum number of hours of content available.
While the power to set the level of the original and regional productions quota is delegated to Ofcom, the DCMS Secretary of State (Lisa Nandy) sets the minimum level for the independent productions quota—which is included in the Schedule of the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations.
Both these draft instruments will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, requiring debate and approval in both Houses before they can be made.
[HCWS940]