BBC Charter Review: Terms of Reference and Green Paper

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The Government have today published the terms of reference and the Green Paper consultation for the BBC charter review, formally launching the review.

The BBC is an institution like no other. For over 100 years it has been at the heart of our national life and a light on the hill for people across the world. This charter will formally set the terms of the BBC for the future, with a clear ambition to set the BBC on a path to thrive until well into the latter half of this century.

Our vision is for a BBC that is trusted, loved and belongs to us all, providing those shared spaces and places that have become so rare and so precious in recent decades. Sustainably funded, with a strong presence in every nation and region so that all of us can see ourselves reflected in our national story. A broadcaster known for its unique strengths, from the highest-quality children’s programmes to impartial and trusted news and documentaries, the world over.

The review will focus on the following areas, which are set out in the objectives in the terms of reference and the Green Paper:

Trust, independence and accountability are central to the BBC’s future, to how it operates and to how it engages with audiences. The BBC must remain independent, genuinely accountable to the public it serves, and, critically, it must continue to command public trust.

To ensure that the BBC remains a trusted institution, it must also follow the highest editorial standards. This is how the BBC provides the facts necessary for civilised debate and a foundation of shared national understanding. It must continue the World Service’s vital work in providing trusted and truthful news internationally, and delivering on its role as a UK soft power asset promoting British values abroad.

The BBC needs to also reflect the whole of the UK. People, right across our nation, must be able to access content that genuinely reflects their lives, their communities, and their contributions. This means the BBC must commission, produce and distribute stories that are truly rooted in diverse UK experiences and promote British stories and creativity to the world.

This charter review will ensure that the BBC continues to remain an engine of growth driving good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK and a leader in technologies that provide public value.

Finally, we have to ensure that the BBC is funded in a way that is sustainable for the long term, providing the BBC with the funding it needs to continue to deliver a vital public service, while also being fair for audiences.

The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. Following this, the Government will bring forward a White Paper next year ahead of tabling a new charter, which Parliament will have the chance to debate. The new charter must come into force by 1 January 2028.

[HCWS1176]

Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Sir John. I did not realise you were such a technophobe until we heard from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). I am disappointed that you were not able to contribute to this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for moving the motion on behalf of the Petitions Committee, and I thank him and other speakers for their contributions.

I have not been on the RTG fans message board that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I am sure it has been very busy this weekend. I wondered if some of the trolls mentioned by the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) were perhaps wearing black and white over the weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised an important point, however: it is the site managers and volunteers who are hosting those forums, keeping them legitimate and working very hard to abide by the law.

Jambos Kickback is an important site for my football team, and many people use it to find out what is going on. It is run by volunteers with no money at all—just for the sheer love of being on the forum together—so I fully understand what the petitioner wants to bring forward. I thank my hon. Friend for the measured way in which he put forward the e-petition. He called for robust, effective and proportionate regulation, which is what the Government are trying to do through the Online Safety Act.

The shadow Minister highlighted that by going through the ledger of the positive and negative issues that the Government face, and indeed that were faced when her party was in government. The one thing on that ledger that is non-negotiable is the safety of children online—I think all hon. Members made that point; in fact, I am disappointed that those who do not make that point are not in this debate to try to win that argument, because I would be very interested to hear what they have to say.

The petition received over 550,000 signatures. Although I appreciate the concerns that it raised, I must reiterate the Government’s very strong response that we have no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act. Parents should know and be confident that their children—I am a father of two young girls, aged five years and ten months—are safe when they access popular online services and that they can benefit from the opportunities that the online world offers. That is why the Government are working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and as effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from the Act’s protections.

This year, 2025, has been one of significant action on online safety. On 17 March the illegal harms codes of practice came into effect. Those codes will drive significant improvements in online safety in several areas. Services are now required to put in place measures to reduce the risk of their services facilitating illegal content and activity, including terrorism, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and other kinds of illegal activity.

I asked the officials for a list of the priority offences in the Act; there were 17, but that number has increased to 20, with the new Secretary of State at the Department adding some others. It is worth reading through them because it shows the problem and the scale of it. I was really struck by Members who talked about the real world and the online world: if any of these offences were happening in the real world, someone would be carted off to jail immediately rather than being allowed to continue to operate, as they do online.

The priority offences are assisted suicide; threats to kill; public order offences such as harassment, stalking and fear of provocation of violence; drugs and psychoactive substances; firearms and other weapons; assisted illegal immigration; human trafficking; sexual exploitation; sexual images; intimate images of children; proceeds of crime; fraud; financial services fraud; foreign interference; animal welfare; terrorism; and controlling or coercive behaviour. The new ones that have been added by the Secretary of State include self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation porn. Do we honestly have to write that into a schedule of an Online Safety Act to say that those things are unacceptable and should not be happening on our computers?

On 25 July, the child safety regime came into force. Services now use highly effective age assurance to prevent children in the UK from encountering pornography and content that encourages, promotes and provides instructions for self-harm, suicide or eating disorders. Platforms are also now legally required to put in place measures to protect children from other types of harmful content, including abusive or hateful content, or bullying and violent content.

When we visited schools, we spoke to headteachers, teachers and parents about the real problem that schools have in trying to deal with the bullying effects of social media. According to Ofcom’s 4 December report that some hon. Members have referenced already, many services now deploy age checks, including the top 10 most popular pornographic sites, the UK’s most popular dating apps and a wide range of other services, including X, Telegram, Reddit, TikTok, Bluesky, Discord, Xbox and Steam. This represents a safer online experience for millions of children across the UK; we have heard that it is already having an impact.

The Government recognise, however, the importance of implementing the duties proportionately. That is why proportionality is a core principle of the Act and is built into many of the duties contained within it. Ofcom’s illegal content and child safety codes of practice set out recommended measures that are tailored to both size and risk to help providers to comply with their obligations —it is really important to emphasise that. When recommending steps that providers can take to comply with their duties, Ofcom must consider the size and risk level of different types and kinds of services.

Let me just concentrate on that for a minute. For instance, Ofcom recommends user blocking and muting measures to help to protect children from harmful content, including bullying, violent content and other harmful materials, and those recommendations are tailored to services’ size and risk profile. Specifically, Ofcom recommends that all services that are high risk for this content need to implement those measures in full. However, for services that are medium risk for this content, Ofcom suggests that they need to implement the measures only if they have more than 700,000 users.

However, while many services carry low risks of harm, risk assessment duties are key to ensuring that risky services of all sizes do not slip through the net of regulation. For example, the Government are very concerned about small platforms that host the most harmful content, such as forums dedicated to encouraging suicide or self-harm. Exempting all small services from duties requiring them to tackle that type of content would mean that those forums would not be subject to the Act’s enforcement powers, which is why we reject the petitioner’s views. Even forums that might seem harmless carry potential risks, such as where adults can engage directly with child users.

The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that low-risk services do not have unnecessary regulatory burdens placed upon them, which I hope reassures the shadow Minister. That is why, in the statement of strategic priorities issued on 2 July, the Government set out our expectation that Ofcom should continue focusing its efforts on safety improvements among services that pose the highest risk of harm to users, including small but risky services. The Government also made it explicitly clear that Ofcom should ensure that expectations on low-risk services are proportionate.

Alongside proportionate implementation of the Act, the Government also understand the need to communicate the new regulations effectively, and to work with companies within its scope to ensure that compliance is as easy as possible. To deliver that, Ofcom is providing support to online service providers of all sizes to make it easier for them to understand and comply with their responsibilities under the UK’s new online safety laws. For example, Ofcom has already launched a regulation checker to help firms to check whether they are covered by the new rules, as well as a number of quick guides for them.

I will address some of the issues raised by Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) started by raising the issue of pornography and other harmful content. User-to-user services that allow pornographic content, and content that promotes, provides instructions for or encourages suicide, self-harm or eating disorders, must use highly effective age assurance to prevent all children under 18 from accessing that type of content.

Services must take proportionate steps to minimise the risk of children encountering that type of content when using them, and they must also put in place age assurance measures to protect children from harmful content, such as bullying and violent content. Ofcom’s “Protection of Children Codes of Practice” set out what steps services can take to comply, and Ofcom has robust enforcement powers available to use against companies that fail to fulfil those important duties. We are already seeing that enforcement happening, with 6,000 sites having taken action to stop children from seeing harmful content, primarily via age checks. That shows the scale of the issue.

Virtual private networks have also been mentioned by a number of Members, including the shadow Minister. Following the introduction of the child safety duties in July, Ofcom reported that UK daily active users of VPN apps temporarily doubled to around 1.5 million—the average is normally about 750,000. Since then, usage has dropped, falling back down to around 1 million daily users by the end of September. That was expected, and it has also happened in other jurisdictions that have introduced age checks. According to an Ofcom rule, services should

“take appropriate steps to mitigate against methods of circumvention that are easily accessible to children”.

If a provider is not complying with the age assurance duties, by promoting VPN usage to bypass age assurance methods, Ofcom can and should take enforcement action. The use of VPNs does not protect platforms from not complying with the Act itself.

[Jim McMahon]

The Minister has done a huge amount of work on this issue, which I am sure is appreciated by everyone in this House. It cannot be beyond the wit of man to find a way for these VPN companies to bridge between the service user and the ultimate website or platform that they are viewing, so why are VPNs not in scope of the legislation to ensure that they are compliant with the age verification measures? Presumably, it is more difficult for the end website to know the origins of the user, if they have bypassed via a VPN. Surely the onus should be on the VPN company to comply with the law also.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; let me come back to him in detail on the VPN issue, as his question relates to what we are planning to do in our review of the Online Safety Act, including both what was written into the legislation and what was not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who is no longer in her place, highlighted the really important issue of chatbots, which has also been mentioned by a number of other Members. Generative AI services including chatbots that allow users to share content with one another or search live websites to provide search engines are already regulated under the Online Safety Act. Those services must protect users from illegal content and children from harmful and age-inappropriate content.

[Victoria Collins]

Ofcom has said, and my understanding is, that in certain circumstances AI chatbots are covered, but certain new harms—such as emotional dependence—are not. That is an area where the House and many people are asking for clarity.

[Ian Murray]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady. There are a whole host of issues around porn bots and AI-generated bots that have now also sprung up. We know that we are committed to the Online Safety Act and its review as its being implemented. As technology moves on quickly, we have to keep pace with what the harms are and how we are able to deal with them. I thank the hon. Lady for raising those particular issues.

We will act on the evidence that comes forward. It is clear that if the evidence shows us that we have to act in various areas, including chatbots, we will do so. The Secretary of State announced plans to support a child safety summit in 2026, which will bring together tech companies, civil society and young people to shape how AI can benefit children and look at online harms and the movements on those.

[Emily Darlington]

I wanted to raise with the Minister that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee will be undertaking an inquiry in the new year on brain development, addictive use and how that impacts various key points in children’s development. The Minister says that he will look at all evidence. Will he look at the evidence produced by that inquiry to ensure that its information and advice goes to parents across this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on that Committee. Of course, the Government have to respond in detail to such reports and we look forward to the recommendations it brings forward. Often we see conspiracy theories in the online world, but there is no conspiracy theory here: the Government are not trying to defend a position against what evidence might come forward.

We have just signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia to look at their experiences of protecting children online and whether there are things that we can do in this country. It has to be evidence-based, and if the evidence base is there, we will certainly make sure to act, because it is non-negotiable that we protect young people and children online.

[Jim McMahon]

I think there is no disagreement on the protection of children and there is no disagreement on what we have legislated to be illegal content. There is more debate needed on harmful but not illegal content and where that line is and what we enforce, and the protections for those who are not children, particularly vulnerable users and those who are being exploited and drawn into some quite extreme behaviours.

I will be honest about where some of these tensions are. How confident will the UK Government be in entering into negotiations on this when we are in the position we are in on trade with the US? The US has also made it clear that it sees any further regulation on social media platforms to be an infringement on trade and freedom of speech. When it comes to making that call, where will the UK Government be?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Act. Although we are regulating to make sure that children and young people are protected online, he is right to suggest that that does not mean we are censoring stuff for adult content. The internet is a place where people can access content if they are age-verified to do so, but it cannot be illegal content. The list of issues in schedule 7 to the Act that I read out at the start of my speech is pretty clear on what someone is not allowed to do online, so any illegal content online still remains illegal. We need to work clearly with the online platforms to make sure that that is not being purveyed through them.

We have seen strong examples of this issue in recent months. If we reflect back to Southport, the public turned to local newspapers—we have discussed this many times before—because they wanted fast and regular but trustworthy news. They turned away from social media channels to get the proper story, and they knew they could trust the local newspaper that they were able to pick up and read. I think the public have a very strong understanding of where we are, but I take the point about people who are not as tech-savvy or are impaired in some way, and so may need further protections. My hon. Friend makes the argument very strongly.

I want to turn to AI chatbots, because they were mentioned in terms of mental health. We are clear that AI must not replace trained professionals. The Government’s 10-year health plan lays foundations for a digital front door for mental health care. Last month, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology urged Ofcom to use existing powers to protect children from the potential harms of AI chatbots. She is clear that she is considering what more needs to be done. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at mental health through the 10-year plan, but the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also been clear that she will not allow AI chatbots to affect young people’s mental health, and will address their development, as mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins).

Let me touch on freedom of expression, because it is important to balance that out. It is on the other side of the shadow Minister’s ledger, and rightly so, because safeguards to protect freedom of expression and privacy are built in throughout the Online Safety Act. Services must consider how to protect users’ rights when applying safety measures, including users’ rights to express themselves freely. Providers do not need to take action on content that is beneficial to children—only against content that poses a risk of harm to children on their services. The Act does not prevent adults from seeking out legal content, and does not restrict people posting legal content that others of opposing views may find offensive. There is no removing of freedom of speech. It is a cornerstone of this Government, and under the Act, platforms have duties to protect freedom of speech. It is written into legislation.

Let me reiterate: the Online Safety Act does not limit freedom of speech. In fact, it protects it. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) was clear when he said in his wonderful speech that making the internet a safe space promotes freedom of speech. Indeed it does, because it allows us to have the confidence that we can use online social media platforms, trust what we are reading and seeing, and know that our children are exposed to age-appropriate content.

I will address age assurance, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). Ofcom is required to produce a report on the use of age assurance technologies, including the effectiveness of age assurance, due in July 2026—so in seven months’ time. That allows sufficient time for these measures to embed in before considering further action, but the Government continue to monitor the impact of circumvention techniques such as VPNs and the effectiveness of the Act in protecting children. We will not hesitate to go further if necessary, but we are due that report in July 2026, which will be 12 months from the implementation of the measures.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson asked about reviewing the Act. My previous comments covered some of that, but it is critical that we understand how effective the online safety regime is, and monitoring and evaluating that is key. My Department, Ofcom and the Home Office have developed a framework to monitor the implementation of the Act and evaluate the core outcomes from it.

[Tom Collins]

The Minister describes the review of the Act and how we have a rapidly growing list of potential harms. It strikes me that we are up against a very agile and rapidly developing world. I recently visited the BBC Blue Room and saw the leading edge of consumer-available technology, and it was quite disturbing to see the capabilities that are coming online soon. In the review of the Act, is there scope to move from a register of harms into perhaps domains of safety, such as trauma, addiction or attachment, where the obligation would be on service providers or manufacturers to ensure their products were safe across those domains? Once again, there could be security for smaller businesses available from the world of technical standards, where if a business is offering a simple service and meets an industry-developed standard, they have presumption of compliance. The British Standards Institution has demonstrated very rapid development of that through the publicly available specification system, and that is available to help us to navigate this rapidly. Could that be in scope?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Interventions should be brief, but I am very kind.

[Ian Murray]

Sir John, you are indeed very kind. My hon. Friend gave two examples during his speech. First, he mentioned brakes that were available only for high-end and expensive cars, and are now on all cars. Secondly, he mentioned building regulations, and how we would not build a balcony without a barrier. Those examples seem fairly obvious and almost flippant, but it seems strange that we would regulate heavily to make sure that people are safe physically—nobody would ever argue that it would be a complete disregard of people’s freedom to have a barrier on an 18th-floor balcony—but not online. We do that to keep people safe, and particularly to keep children safe. As my hon. Friend said, if we are keeping adults safe, we are ultimately keeping children safe too.

We have to continue to monitor and evaluate. I was just about to come on to the post-implementation review of the Act, which I am sure my hon. Friend will be very keen to have an input into. The Secretary of State must complete a review of the online safety regime two to five years after part 3 of the Act, which is about duties of care, fully comes into force. The review will therefore be completed no sooner than 2029. These are long timescales, of course, and technology is moving, so I understand the point that he is making. I recall that in the Parliament from 2010 to 2015, we regulated for the telephone, so we move slowly, although we understand that we also have to be nimble to legislate.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted, asked whether the Act has gone far enough. Ofcom, the regulator, is taking an iterative approach and will strengthen codes of practice as online harms, technology and the evidence evolve. We are already making improvements, for example strengthening the law to tackle self-harm, cyber-flashing and strangulation. The hon. Lady also asked whether Ofcom has received an increase in resources. It has—Ofcom spending has increased by nearly 30% in the past year, in recognition of its increased responsibilities. She also asked about a digital age of consent. As I mentioned, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with Australia and will engage with Australia to understand its approach. Any action will be based, of course, on robust evidence.

[Victoria Collins]

I would just like to clarify that I made a call for an age of data consent. We put that forward earlier this year as an amendment to the Act. A very first step is to stop social media companies harvesting data and using it to power these addictive algorithms against young people. It is about data consent to 16. Then of course, there is the wider discussion about what is happening with social media in general, but it is that age of data consent that is our first call to action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I take that point about the amendment that the Liberal Democrats tabled.

The hon. Lady also asked for a cross-party Committee to take action. I have already talked about the review of the implementation of the regulations that will happen in July and the other stages after that, as well as the post-implementation review. Of course, setting up a new Committee is a matter for the House. I have no objections to the House setting up Committees to look at these big and important issues that we all care about, if that is what it decides to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester talked about the issue of Parliament and engagement. He asked whether the Department would engage with the group of academics he mentioned, who are looking at technical safety standards for social media, including considering what role those academics could play in relation to these provisions. I welcome his invitation and I am sure that the Minister responsible for this area—the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan)—would be delighted to participate in those talks. I am sure that he will be in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester to take him up on that offer.

We have heard about algorithms, so it is worth focusing concentrating on them. Hon. Friends have talked about the algorithms that serve harmful content. The Government have been clear that algorithms can impact on the risk of harm for children, which is why the legislation comprehensively covers them. The legislation requires providers to consider, via risk assessment, how algorithms could impact children’s exposure to illegal or harmful content, and providers must then take steps to mitigate those risks. If they do not do so, Ofcom has powers that it can use.

[Jim McMahon]

There needs to be a tie-in here with the Cabinet Office and the review of electoral law. If a kind donor in my constituency owned a big billboard and gave me absolute free use of it during an election period, but made an offer to any other party that they could put a Post-it note on the back of it that nobody would see, I would have been expected to declare that as a gift in kind, or a donation in kind. That is not the case with algorithms that are posting and promoting generally right-wing and far-right content during the regulated period. Surely there has to be a better join-up here of election law and online law.

[Ian Murray]

This is a huge issue and all of us in this House are very concerned about misinformation and disinformation, and the impact on our democracy. Indeed, I am sure that in the time that I have been speaking here in Westminster Hall, my own social media will have been full of bots and all sorts of other things that try to encourage people to get involved in this debate, in order to influence the algorithm. That can fundamentally disturb our democracy, and is something we are looking at very closely. The Cabinet Office and ourselves are looking at the misinformation and disinformation issue, as is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in terms of the media outlook and how elections are run in this country. We should all be very clear about not having our democratic processes undermined by such algorithmic platforms that serve up the kind of content that provides misinformation and disinformation to the public.

[Emily Darlington]

I appreciate what the Minister says—that these powers are in legislation—yet the process is still the social media platforms marking their own homework. We are in a vicious circle: Ofcom will not take action unless it has a complaint based on evidence, but the evidence is not achievable because the algorithm is not made available for scrutiny. How should Ofcom use those powers more clearly ahead of the elections to ensure that such abuse to our democracy does not occur?

[Ian Murray]

A whole host of legislation sits behind this, including through the Electoral Commission and the Online Safety Act, but it is important for us to find ways to ensure that we protect our democratic processes, whether that be from algorithmic serving of content or foreign state actors. It is in the public domain that, when the Iranian servers went dark during the conflict with the US, a third of pro-independence Facebook pages in Scotland went dark, because they were being served by foreign state actors. We have seen that from Russia and various other foreign actors. We have to be clear that the regulations in place need to be implemented and, if they are not, we need to find other ways to ensure that we protect our democracy. At a small tangent, our public sector broadcasters and media companies are a key part of that.

To stay with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), she made an excellent contribution, with figures for what is happening. She asked about end-to-end encryption. We support responsible use of encryption, which is a vital part of our digital world, but the Online Safety Act does not ban any service design such as end-to-end encryption, nor does it require the creation of back doors. However, the implementation of end-to-end encryption in a way that intentionally binds tech companies to content will have a disastrous impact on public safety, in particular for children, and we expect services to think carefully about their design choices and to make the services safe by design for children.

That leads me to online gaming platforms and Roblox, which my hon. Friend also mentioned. Ofcom has asked the main platforms, including Roblox, to share what they are doing and to make improvements where needed. Ofcom will take action if that is not advanced. A whole host of things are happening, and we need the Online Safety Act and the regulations underpinning it to take time to feed through. I hope that we will start to see significant improvements, as reflected on by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central.

My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central mentioned deepfakes. That issue is important to our democracy as well. The Government are concerned about the proliferation of AI-enabled products and services that enable deepfake non-consensual images. In addition to criminalising the creation of non-consensual images, the Government are looking at further options, and we hope to provide an update on that shortly. It is key to protecting not only our wider public online but, fundamentally, those who seek public office.

The Government agree that a safer digital future needs to include small, personally owned and maintained websites. We recognise the importance that proportionate implementation of the Online Safety Act plays in supporting that aim. We can all agree that we need to protect children online, and we would not want low-risk services to have any unnecessary compliance burden. That is a balance that we have to strike to make it proportionate. The Government will conduct a post-implementation review of the Act and will consider the burdens on low-risk services as part of that review, as mentioned in the petition. We will also ensure that the Online Safety Act protects children and is nimble enough to deal with a very fast-moving tech world. I thank all hon. Members for providing a constructive debate and raising their issues. I look forward to engaging further in the months and years ahead.

Culture, Media and Sport

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Written Corrections

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December… That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 388WH.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray):

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 18 March… That assessment will be reported to the House by the spring.

Local Media

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is brilliant to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan, and it is great to have this wonderful debate with you presiding over us. I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing an important debate. We can see from the contributions that it has been an important one, which everyone is interested in. I am delighted that he graduated from stuffing leaflets into newspapers at 13 to stuffing Tory leaflets through letterboxes at 45; he has certainly gone a long way. I, too, had a newspaper run when I was younger, a morning run, which I hated—it was underpaid, too long and too early in the morning—although apart from that, I loved everything about it.

Local media provides a vital and unique service to our communities in its provision of trustworthy—which I emphasise—public interest journalism. Local journalism fosters a range of social benefits, much wider than that itself, empowering local communities and reflecting the issues that matter to us. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right when he said at the start of his contribution that many people would want to pop up to talk about their local titles. I agree that that might not make a blind bit of difference to the way in which we are treated as a local MP in our local newspapers, but it was nice to hear.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that excellent local titles such as the Bridlington Echo, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and The Holderness & Hornsey Gazette need support? We need to ensure that the income stream from local authority statutory notices continues, so that such thriving local titles continue into the future.

[Ian Murray]

One hundred per cent, and the hon. Gentleman has just secured a column.

We heard from many Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), about the Isle of Wight County Press, the Island Echo, the Isle of Wight Observer and OnTheWight. He hates getting calls from the editors of those newspapers to clarify things, but I am sure his relationship for leaking stuff back to them is rather strong.

We also heard about the Hampshire Chronicle, the Bromley News Shopper, the Biggin Hill News Shopper, the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, the Meon Valley Times, the Bournemouth Echo, Bournemouth One, the Greater Nunthorpe News, The Oxford Times, the Epping Forest Guardian, Everything Epping Forest online and The Comet. We heard about The Independent Melksham News, Talk of The Town, Coastal View & Moor News, The Yorkshire Post, Yorkshire Radio, the York Press, the Bedford Independent, the Bedford Today, Coast & County, BBC Yorkshire and Tees, the Witney Gazette, The Scarborough News, the Farnham Herald.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the editor of his local newspaper, Paul Symington, but did not tell us the name of the newspaper, but I believe it is the Newtownards Chronicle—they might pronounce “Newtownards” differently in the east of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) talked about local radio—Radio Forth, Central FM and Radio Clyde, such that I thought he was going to burst into a jingle at one point with his experience—and the Stirling Observer.

We heard about the Somerset Western Gazette, The Somerset Leveller and the Bath Chronicle. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) mentioned the Oldham Evening Chronicle, The Oldham Times, the Oldham Reporter and the Manchester Evening News. He even went on to talk about ITV regional news.

I am not going to get involved in the childishness and churlishness of mentioning all our local newspapers, so I will not mention the Edinburgh Evening News, The Edinburgh Reporter or Edinburgh Live. All that shows us, however, the impact that local newspapers have on our life, locally and across the country.

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way—did I forget yours, sorry?

[John McDonnell]

No, I never mentioned it; don’t worry. Does the Minister agree about the sense of urgency in this debate? I will give an example from my constituency. We had those demonstrations outside the asylum hotels, largely fuelled not by local people, but by organisations, quite ruthless ones, with masked men trying to break into the hotels and all the rest. Also, on social media, we have had allegations made against asylum seekers that are completely untrue, but specifically designed to sow division in our community.

We lack a very locally focused newspaper, so people have no access to finding out what the truth really is. They get beguiled and misled by that social media, which is deliberate, because those social media clicks become clickbait, and those individuals make money from it. That is the significance of local media, in particular local press, at the moment when our society is under such threat from those individuals and far-right organisations.

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. In fact, he pre-empted what I was about to say on the way in which it is more important now than ever for our local news to be part of the ecosystem of how people digest current affairs and what is happening.

We saw the division and tensions that were created in Southport. Thankfully, those were headed off at the pass because of local people turning to local news outlets, such as the Liverpool Echo, the Southport Visiter and others, where they could trust that the news they were picking up—either in a newspaper or online—was truthful, up to date and in the best interests of local people. Those examples, as well as the ones my right hon. Friend gave, show how important it is to have trusted local news to deal with mis and disinformation.

[Rachael Maskell]

I was certainly referring to such an example in my speech, but I am particularly concerned about the influence that disinformation is having on this place and on the policies of Governments over time, which have been brought out in response to that social, unregulated space. Is that not all the more reason for the urgency behind ensuring that a properly regulated environment is put in place, so that we do not have those influences, and we instead pull on the real stories and evidence out there?

[Ian Murray]

That is really part of the Government’s response to this challenge, as I will lay out in my contribution. The Government are committed to devolving more power and funding to local leaders and communities to bring decision making closer to the people it affects. That, of course, allows local journalism and local news to exercise that transparency and hold power to account by being in the public interest and having that strong accountability. Those are all essential in the examples that we heard in the previous two interventions.

Local media plays a key role in all this—not only in helping to build a more socially cohesive country and providing trustworthy information at that local level, but in countering the false and divisive narratives that are percolating through all our communities, and in helping to keep communities informed, scrutinising local decision making and fostering civic engagement. These are all things that hon. Members have covered in their contributions.

At the same time, never before has this role been so endangered. We have also heard from many hon. Members about the dangers and the challenges. The way that we consume news has transformed—people say over the past 20 years, but actually it has been transforming daily. The way that people consume the news of tomorrow will be different from the news of yesterday.

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I understand the importance of involving those at the coalface in the Government’s deliberations on the upcoming media strategy. Would he agree to meet the National Union of Journalists and consult it on the local media strategy?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, but yes—I will lay out later what the local media strategy has done so far, how we have been consulting through the roundtables we have undertaken, and where the Secretary of State has been taking a leading role.

As we know, people are increasingly looking to their mobile phones rather than their local newspaper. I do not know when hon. Members last actually bought their local newspaper—picked it up off a shelf and paid for the physical copy. Across news publishing, local TV and radio, these changes have prompted significant financial challenges, as traditional business models for local journalism are under more pressure than ever. Those pressures are more acute for local news publishers, both in print and online, although many local outlets are now moving online.

Around 300 local newspapers, as we have heard already, have closed since 2005—equivalent to as much as a third of the sector—and the number of journalists employed by the three largest news providers, which have 60% of the market, fell from around 9,000 to 3,000 between 2007 and 2022. Over that 15-year period, revenue for those three publishers fell from nearly £2.5 billion to a little more than half a billion. We can see the challenge of revenue for our local newspapers.

The effect has been an overall decline in the provision of high-quality local media across the country. More than 40% of UK citizens who are interested in local news do not consider that their local news needs are being met. As many as 38 local authority districts now have no print, online, TV or radio dedicated specifically to that area, leaving up to 4.7 million citizens in local news deserts. That is why the Government are committed to the local media strategy.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Does the Minister recognise that, while we are talking about the struggles local media outlets are facing—and that huge drop in revenue over 15 years—taking away £32 million by removing the opportunity for them to carry advertisements for licence changes could have a huge impact?

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to examine that point in more detail, but it is well made and certainly understood by Government. That is why we have committed to the local media strategy—to address all of the issues, but particularly those around sustainability—because our vision is for a thriving local media that can continue to play an invaluable role as a key channel of trustworthy information at local level, reporting on the issues that matter to communities, reflecting their contributions and perspectives, and telling their stories at that local level. The Government also want to empower local media to hold local public services to account, to help foster a self-confident nation in which everyone feels that their contribution is part of an inclusive national story, and, of course, to counter damaging mis and disinformation.

To achieve that, the Government intend to support local media in three key ways. In the short to medium term, we will help the sector, particularly local news publishers, to innovate and transition to sustainable online-focused business models. Over the longer term, we will help the industry to adapt to changing online audience habits and to foster a collaborative and complementary relationship with those that have most influence over citizens’ news diets, particularly big tech—as we have heard—and the BBC, with the important role that it plays. Finally, we will make it easier for journalists to scrutinise local public services and other institutions, conduct investigative journalism and report without fear or favour. Innovation funding is part of that. We have not ruled out the option of financial support being a key part of the local media strategy, bearing in mind the fiscal constraints in which we currently operate.

[Jim McMahon]

I get the Government’s intention, which I strongly support, and I credit the Minister for the work that he is doing, but none of us would accept a member of the public going into a newsagents, taking a newspaper off the rack and walking out without paying for it, yet that is exactly what is taking place with these online giants. They are taking the news off the rack without any payment, commercialising it and making billions in the process. That is what we need to consider. I hear the arguments about whether local authorities should continue with statutory notices—I have a different view; I am not sure that we should hold on to something from the past if it is not adding real value that can be demonstrated from the public investment—but we need to move to a modern way of funding a sustainable local press. Surely that requires a bigger intervention from the Government.

[Ian Murray]

I will come on to that, because the AI copyright issue is a key part of what we are trying to determine. As my hon. Friend will know, under the legislation, the Government are preparing to publish the report and impact assessment required by sections 135 and 136 of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That must be laid before the House by 12 December.[Official Report, 8 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 2WC.] (Correction) The impact assessment will include an assessment of each of the options put forward in the Government’s consultation on copyright and AI, including the economic impact of each option on copyright owners and AI developers. That will include the publishing and the news sectors.

In the meantime, the Secretaries of State at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and at DCMS have jointly shared three meetings with representatives of both the AI and the creative sectors. We are convening expert working groups and parliamentary working groups to consider all the options. We are dedicated to protecting our world-class creative industries and to ensuring that they thrive in the age of AI. Our creative industries sector plan is all part of making sure that that sector flourishes. I am interested in what my hon. Friend said about that British news co-operative model, which might be able to be used as a collecting agency for those kind of issues.

That assessment will be reported to the House by Christmas.¹ There will be great interest in that and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to supply some more information on those particular industries. We are very much dedicated to protecting our world-leading creative industries. I hope that gives him some assurance.

On the local media strategy, in the spring we had a roundtable with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and local news editors. We set up an industry working group to consider the issues in more detail and explore areas for collaboration. I have not dealt with the roundtable yet, being relatively new to this role—I do not know whether the National Union of Journalists is part of it but I will check and inform my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) whether it is. If not, we will make sure that it has input into that working group. That roundtable has been meeting since June and has been invaluable in shaping our approach. We thank all those journalists who have given their time to help us shape that work.

A whole host of other things are happening. Let me touch on a few that address some of the issues that have been raised. Many hon. Members raised concerns about the recent Government proposal to relax statutory requirements—this goes to some of the interventions—to publish and print applications for alcohol licences in local newspapers. That proposal is being explored as part of a wider set of licensing reforms that aim to create a modern, proportionate and enabling system that supports economic growth, revitalises high streets first, as vibrant communities, and helps local authorities. The call for evidence closed in November. We are carefully considering the responses and will take forward the final decision as part of that local media strategy. Of course, the contributions that hon. Members have made in this debate, and others on this topic, will be taken into account in that process.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Councils are currently required to place a notice in one or more newspapers circulating in their area; that Bill would enable councils to decide how best to publish any relevant information. In practice that provision will apply to very few councils, since over 80% in England already operate a leader and cabinet model and will therefore not be required to make any changes to their governance models. The DCMS and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are considering how that measure interacts with the forthcoming statutory notices review that sits alongside it.

At the same time, the Government recognise that statutory notices of all types are important in helping to inform the public of decisions made by the council that affect the quality of their lives, local services and amenities or their property, and the impact that has on the financing of local media. A separate part of the strategy will look ahead to the long-term future of local media. It is important that we consider the role of the BBC as part of that, as many hon. Members have mentioned. As the charter review approaches, the Green Paper will be published soon. That is an opportunity to consider how the BBC can best support and defend local news through its work.

In that context, as the shadow Minister mentioned, the local democracy reporting service plays a key role in helping communities and local businesses to scrutinise decisions that impact them and in holding public services to account through fact-based local reporting. We will look to extend and improve that service as part of the licence charter period. The BBC underpins a lot of local reporting and the local news ecosystem.

We are taking action through the digital markets regime, which came into force at the beginning of the year and which should help rebalance the relationship between the biggest tech firms and news publishers. The issue of big tech companies not being subject to the rules was raised in the debate. We welcome the progress made by the Competition and Markets Authority, in particular in designating Google’s and Apple’s services as being subject to its rules. Measures in the Online Safety Act 2023 on the treatment of journalists’ content will add a further layer of protection for the industry against the erroneous takedown of content by social media platforms, especially at the height of the news cycles that we have seen, once implemented by Ofcom. The local media strategy will explore whether further action may be needed to support local media in adapting to changing audience habits online, and guaranteeing public access to high-quality local journalism, particularly in the context of AI-generated news summaries and aggregators.

On Government advertising expenditure, we are committed to ensuring we make the best use of local media in Government advertising campaigns. My Department has been working closely with the Cabinet Office on that as part of the local media strategy, because we know local media provides that trustworthy environment for those kinds of governmental issues, and is a vital source of revenue. We are working on taking that forward.

I will refer quickly to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the Government establishing a journalism foundation to co-ordinate support. The Cairncross review recommended something similar. Our local media strategy will seek to achieve the same ends by co-ordinating support for this vital industry. That possibility is on the cards and I look forward to working with him to see that happen.

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, which passed in the summer, extends public interest considerations to further protect plurality in our system; there are public interest considerations about the need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. The statutory instruments about control by a single publisher, which was also mentioned by many hon. Members, have gone through.

I will finish by talking about the protection of journalists, which is hugely important. They need to be protected from harassment, abuse and threats, whether online or offline, of an illegal nature. As co-chair of the National Committee for the Safety of Journalists, alongside the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), I welcome the delivery of many of the group’s commitments to ensure that journalists can operate free from such threats. The NUJ has been very involved in that hugely important process. That includes the work of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, which confirmed in September that each police force across the UK now has an appointed single point of contact for journalists to reassure them that they can operate in the field and online with a direct point of contact to the police should any issues arise.

We are committed to a plural, trustworthy and independent media landscape. Our local media strategy will play a key role in fostering that at a local level. More will be announced on the strategy in the coming months. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that the local media strategy delivers for all our local newspapers.

Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is great to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for this important debate. I am pleased to respond to it. I congratulate—as all other hon. Members have—the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate, and on the balanced way in which he presented his case, with the gambling industry on one side and the harms that it causes on the other.

The Government care deeply about gambling regulation. The number of debates that we have had on the issue, and the constructive contributions that we have had from hon. Members from both sides of the House, show that Parliament is very interested in the issue as well. Since the election last year, we have tried hard to strike the right balance between taking action to reduce gambling-related harm in areas where it has the greatest impact and supporting the gambling sector to modernise. I wish to set out how we have approached that task and what might come next, not least in the context of last week’s Budget. I hope to address as many points from hon. Members as I possibly can.

Gambling is enjoyed responsibly by many tens of millions of people, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), laid out. It is an industry that is part of our national life. Having a little flutter on the grand national and betting on the world cup semi-final or the grand prix are the kinds of big events that bring people together. My mother was a bookmaker. What she could do on that chalkboard on grand national day to work out the odds and the winnings—and often the losses—for the punters was something to behold. Many hon. Members have mentioned family members, and I remember my grandfather looking to win that million pounds with 25p a bet on a Saturday afternoon—he died a pauper, never quite making it that far. Gambling also brings people together, so that flutter is something that we should cherish. The industry has worked very hard to protect it and, in last week’s Budget, we tried very hard to protect it too.

For many people, including many Members who have spoken, the regulation of the online sector is of the greatest concern. We recognise that the risk of harm is greater for many online products and we have taken targeted action on that. In May, we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24-year-olds and a £5 limit for those 25 and over. Those limits are a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses. It took a long time to get that through—it was a debate that went on right through the last Parliament if I recall—and many hon. Members, including the former Member for Hyndburn, took that forward to get some limits in place.

Several hon. Members have mentioned advertising. We recognise the impact that harmful gambling can have on children and vulnerable people, and we are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. There are already rules to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The hon. Member for Witney majored on the way that advertising can affect children, and I am grateful for his contribution on that, so I want to address it particularly.

We want to protect young people from gambling-related harm, and my noble Friend the gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, cares a great deal about this issue as well. As part of the prevention stream of the statutory gambling levy, gambling education funding will improve access to and support for gambling education. We also welcome the Department for Education’s expanded guidance on gambling as part of the statutory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am sure that my noble Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Witney to discuss those harms for young people.

I will run through some of the prevention measures that have been introduced that the shadow Minister mentioned, such as financial vulnerability checks, safer online casino game design, improving consumer choice on direct marketing, Think 25, extending test purchasing to small operators, financial risk assessments, better access to safer gambling tools such as deposit limits that restrict people’s gambling, and socially responsible incentives. I do hear, however, that there are issues with trying to pull people into gambling—to get them on to the platforms and betting—through free spins, free bets and free cash. That is something we should be looking at.

The industry has voluntarily done a number of things. It has introduced GamProtect, as we have heard already, and the front-of-shirt sponsorship ban for next season, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I wish Stoke all the very best in being promoted from the championship; my own club, Heart of Midlothian, have burst my coupon on many a Saturday afternoon by not getting the results that they surely deserved. The industry has also voluntarily introduced improved gambling transaction and bank blocking, which is ongoing, and worked on creating the gambling ombudsman. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, but we are very much looking at that ombudsman issue. It will take primary legislation to bring in something like that, but I assure hon. Members that it has not left the agenda.

We need to work closely with the gambling industry, where we can, on those big advertising issues to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm. We intend to redouble our efforts to work cross-Government and with tech platforms to address illegal gambling advertising, which poses the most risk for children and vulnerable people, as hon. Members have mentioned. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages.

I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen in today’s written ministerial statement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, that the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million so far. That will be ringfenced, ensuring that it is used solely to address gambling-related harm across the UK. That will support our priority of making sure that there is sufficient independent and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services to tackle and treat gambling-related harm. It will also help to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and in the provision of treatment and support.

To answer the shadow Minister’s challenge on the timescale, we have appointed a number of commissioners to oversee the delivery of levy funding. Some 20% of levy funding has been allocated to UK Research and Innovation for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives. Some 30% will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments—they will get their share of that—to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harms across all three nations of Great Britain: Wales, Scotland and England. In England, the OHID will prioritise the development of an industry-independent public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention. I think that answers some of the issues that we heard from the shadow Minister about how expertise needs to be involved in this process and to be funded to deliver on some of those issues.

This is really important: the remaining 50% of the levy will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents to commission the full treatment pathway, working collaboratively with the third sector to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that this should be a public health issue, and I think that the breakdown of that £120 million from the levy—the amount going directly into health issues—shows that the levy is dealing with this as a public health issue, rather than it being a gambling or DCMS issue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland, of course, but this is just a Great Britain initiative. Gambling, as he mentioned, is substantially devolved in Northern Ireland, where a separate regulatory system is in place. We are open to working with the Government in Northern Ireland on issues relating to gambling regulation. I understand that DCMS officials—many of them are sitting behind me—are having a meeting with counterparts in Northern Ireland on this very issue next week, so hopefully there will be progress on that. If there any issues that the hon. Member wants to bring forward, he should please get in touch with the ministerial team and we will certainly take those forward, on behalf of Northern Ireland, to help where we can.

Let me say a little about the modernising measures that we have put in place. Our work to tackle gambling-related harm has not prevented us from introducing modernisation measures, where appropriate, in a balanced way. For example, in June we introduced modernising reforms to the casino licensing regime to support growth in the land-based casino sector. Those were enacted following consideration of all the available evidence and are proportionate modernisations that reflect the changes in gambling behaviour since former restrictions were set many years ago. In October, we launched a consultation on changes to stakes and prizes for low-risk category D machines to support the family entertainment sector that runs seaside amusement arcades and piers. We all remember, as kids, being on the pier and putting 1p and 2p pieces into those kinds of low-stake machines.

Only last week, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of bingo duty in recognition of the benefits that bingo halls bring to our local communities and in support of a sector loved by many. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have the odd bingo game at one of his fundraisers to entertain the masses—or not. We are also consulting on the issue of venues that are operating under bingo licences but may be difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres to see whether there is an appetite for change to ensure that any premises with a bingo licence has bingo at the heart of its offering.

I know that there have been concerns about consumer protection in adult gaming centres. Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, has been clear that she will not consider any deregulatory changes to adult gaming centres without improved protections. The industry has announced new measures on self-exclusion, and the Government will continue to work with it and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the protections are fit for purpose.

Many Members have also raised concerns about the concentration of gambling premises, particularly in deprived areas. To strengthen the powers available to local authorities, the Government will introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing as soon as parliamentary time allows, and that will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Witney raised.

Let me also mention the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the way in which the gambling industry supports local communities as well as sports through that kind of advertising. Sports support is obviously an issue for governing bodies, and the governing bodies for the premiership have determined that such advertising on the front of shirts will not be allowed next season. We would encourage every sporting body, or any body, that is taking advertising from the industry to look very clearly at what the impact of that is.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He is right that a number of sporting sectors derive a lot of sponsorship from the gambling sector, such as darts, the English Football League and horseracing. If, as a result of the tax changes announced last week, those companies withdraw their sponsorship, do the Government have a contingency plan? Have they had conversations with those sectors about how to make up that shortfall? In particular, I think £350 million goes into horseracing every year from gambling companies through sponsorship. If it loses that, the horseracing sector in this country will die.

[Ian Murray]

We talk to the gambling industry about that constantly. My noble Friend Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, is taking some of those discussions forward. We will continue to monitor it because a huge amount of sponsorship comes from the gambling industry. That is not a judgment on whether it is right or wrong, as we have heard today how damaging it may be; the hon. Member for Witney mentioned that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising. We should monitor it, and individual governing bodies will be looking at it. Premier league football is a good example of where a governing body has made a decision on shirt sponsorship, although I do not think it will have any difficulty in attracting sponsors, but other sports will find it more difficult to attract new money. We have seen this before with tobacco and alcohol advertising being banned, and we will continue to monitor it.

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for telling the personal story of his friend M. I am sure that story is reflected all over the country. We have heard from other Members this afternoon about suicides and the impact that gambling has had on families and the wider community. We should always reflect on those stories when talking about the positives and negatives of gambling.

I want to address the gambling taxation changes, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned in some detail. The changes to gambling duties were outlined by the Chancellor last week at the Budget, which we will vote on this evening. Everyone will be aware that, in addition to the abolishing of bingo duty, we have announced an increase in the remote gambling duty from 21% to 40%. We have also announced a new remote betting duty set at 25%, with a carve-out to protect horseracing.

We have introduced those increases in gambling duties to reflect the way in which the sector has gone and to support our public finances. I take issue with how the shadow Minister presented that issue, because it is all about making balanced judgments. Of the money that will be raised for the Treasury, £26 million will be used to tackle the black and illegal market, which is a concern for us all. The money will also ensure that we can pull 450,000 children out of poverty, addressing any correlation between gambling addiction and poverty. The Chancellor and I believe that pulling 450,000 children out of poverty would be the best societal way of using that money.

With the Budget changes, it is clear that the Government are not anti-gambling. I have set out some of the measures that we have introduced in support of the sector. Through the Budget, we have also sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk and have greater levels of employment. We recognise the dangers posed by the illegal market, and for those in the regulated sector and those at risk of gambling-related harm. That is why we have allocated that £26 million to the Gambling Commission over three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. That will be kept under constant review. We also hope to work closely with the industry and others to see how we can go further in this space.

The issue of consumer awareness was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), and by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that we can work on customer awareness to demonstrate that the regulated sector is where people should be, and to spot the unregulated sector. If someone were to land on a website from an advert on social media, is it obvious to the vast majority whether it is a regulated or unregulated website? How would they know? I suspect that the unregulated sector has rather less regulated ways of pulling customers in. Education on customer and consumer awareness through the Gambling Commission would certainly be something that we should look at as well. There is no doubt that the social harms in the illegal industry are more amplified than those in the regulated industry.

I will talk a little about the national lottery, because it is a part of gambling that we do not tend to talk about in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned national lottery scratchcards, but most people do not see playing the national lottery as gambling. It would be interesting for some analysis to be done about what the public thinks gambling actually is—whether it is the 25p accumulator on the Grand National or playing the national lottery. There is no doubt that the national lottery is a national institution and it has had a huge impact on good causes in our communities. I suspect that a lot of people in this country play the national lottery, yes, to win the big prize, drift off on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean and hand in their resignation—I suppose it would be to the Prime Minister in my case if I were to win—and retire. But people also play the national lottery knowing that a lot of that money goes into good causes and they see transformation, whether through heritage or charitable cases and those kinds of things.

To conclude, it is important that as a Government we now take stock of where we are. I know that there are further regulatory reforms that many Members want to see, and we will continue to act when evidence shows us that we need to intervene. Nevertheless, it is important that we implement and evaluate our recent reforms properly and give them time to bed in before moving on to the next thing. For example, we need to ensure that the three strands of the statutory levy are running smoothly. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the shadow Minister. We need to fully engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of the tax changes on their businesses and provide as much certainty as we can while that happens. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in particular. This all requires a bit of time to bed in.

Ultimately, the Government want a gambling sector that is modern, sustainable and protects the most vulnerable from harm but that is also thriving. Our manifesto committed us to working with the industry to ensure responsible gambling, and that remains important to us. In parallel, we will continue to regulate gambling in a balanced and modernising way and support the regulatory sector where we can.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome some of the submissions that the Minister has made. Could I press him on what monitoring there will be of movement towards the unregulated market? The OBR report is quite clear that the Government expect to see a proportion of people from the regulated sector move to the unregulated sector. The increased money for the Gambling Commission to tackle that is welcome. However, can the Minister say whether there will be a concerted and specific effort to monitor the direction of travel? The Netherlands saw a five times increase when it made some changes, and is struggling to recoup that. I want to make sure that we learn from those lessons and do not end up repeating the same drive towards the more damaging part of the sector.

[Ian Murray]

I think that the Government have acknowledged the issue around the black and illegal market, given the £26 million that has gone into the Gambling Commission. Since April 2024, the Gambling Commission has significantly increased its disruption activity and has focused on finding innovative ways to tackle the illegal market. The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced to Parliament in February, has passed through the House of Commons and is now in Committee in the other place. It will give the Gambling Commission greater powers to act quicker to take down illegal websites, so there are legislative moves on this issue as well.

As part of the Budget there is £26 million specifically for the Gambling Commission to increase its investment resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. The message from Government is that if someone is operating in the illegal market, we are coming after them—legislatively, regulatorily and with money. We will continue to monitor the outcomes from that.

This has been a very balanced debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Witney for securing it. No doubt we will return to this for regular updates on where we are. I hope that the levy, the new tax changes and the money for the Gambling Commission for the illegal market can now bed in and that we can try and get some of that £120 million levy into the organisations that deal with gambling harms. I hope, also, that we can celebrate that gambling is harmless for the vast majority of the public who participate in it—and something that this Government are very keen to support.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), as well as all the Members who attended the debate; and you, Sir Desmond, for chairing it. I appreciate the sensible, fair and respectful way that we have handled the debate and the shared recognition that gambling can be fun but can also do a whole lot of damage. We have to try to balance that as best we can. I think we have all tried to do that in our own way.

I thank the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) for doing his best to make the other case. He did a fair job of that. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did excellent jobs in detailing the damage done, particularly so with regard to M, who my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury mentioned. After the debate, I will be asking about where he is now.

I also thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for bringing a great range of thought with regard to the public health aspects of this issue. They made very valuable contributions on that. The shadow Minister did a great job of making the case for the other side of the argument.

I thank the Minister for all his input. It was very helpful that he explained where the Government are on the gambling levy, local authorities and the cumulative impact assessments. I will admit to being less clear about the Government’s position on online advertising and what they are planning to do with that £2 billion—when, where and how. I look forward to staying in touch on that. Similarly, the issue of the ombudsman was not covered in detail. I would welcome an intervention from the Minister to provide some clarity on that.

[Ian Murray]

I am surprised and grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene. The gambling ombudsman is the most effective way to deliver independent alternative dispute resolution. We know that that will require primary legislation, and we are conscious of the need to put in place an appropriate mechanism as soon as possible. It has not been ruled out. Work on this is ongoing, but it will require primary legislation. As I said at the end of my speech, with all the other things that we want to do to try to bed this in, we are very conscious that the industry is having to deal with an awful lot of change at the moment, but it is still on the agenda.

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

Gambling Levy

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Written Statements

[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 statutory levy on gambling operators, which commenced in April 2025, represents a major transformation. The levy will provide, for the first time, independent and sustainable funding for gambling-related harms research, prevention and treatment.

Subject to final checks, this year the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million, which will be ringfenced solely for the use of tackling gambling-related harm. This will support our priority of making sure there is sufficient and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services and to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and provision of treatment and support. The funding will improve and expand services to new areas, to ensure more people can access the right help when they need it.

In line with the objectives of the statutory levy, funding will be directed in specific proportions for the purposes of research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm:

20% will go to UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling. The levy will provide a dedicated and sustainable injection of funding for independently-commissioned research to inform policy and practice. We expect the formal launch of the UKRI Gambling Harms Research Co-ordination Centre to take place in April 2026. A small portion of funding will also be allocated to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives.

30% of funding will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harm across all three nations of Great Britain. In England, OHID will prioritise the development of an independent, public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention activity.

The remaining 50% of funding will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to work with providers, including the third sector, to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. This will ensure services are joined up and consistent so that no one is falling through the cracks.

All commissioners are working to establish their respective gambling harms programmes and structures. In England, it is expected that applications for voluntary sector organisations to access levy funding for prevention programmes will open in the new year, with grant funds being accessible from April 2026 in line with the conclusion of GambleAware commissioning. The approach for voluntary sector provision of treatment programmes will be confirmed shortly. It is a priority for all commissioners that those affected by gambling-related harm continue to have access to the help and support they need.

Governance arrangements have been put in place, which will look objectively at how the levy is working and hold commissioners to account. The Gambling Levy Programme Board has been established as the central mechanism for establishment and oversight of the levy to ensure that funding is being spent appropriately and efficiently, and that the system is delivering on its objectives.

The Gambling Levy Advisory Group, has now been renamed the Gambling Levy Delivery Group to reflect its focus on implementation and delivery. This brings together the research, prevention and treatment commissioners at a working level, alongside DCMS and Gambling Commission officials, to facilitate appropriate integration and collaboration between commissioning leads.

Funding decisions will be taken by the appropriate bodies, with scrutiny provided by relevant governance structures. We will also ensure that lived experience voices are informing levy programmes, with further details to be confirmed in due course. Through these governance arrangements, we will continue to review how much the levy is collecting and the distribution of the levy as the evidence base for this grows.

[HCWS1118]

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

9. What recent progress the Future of TV Distribution stakeholder forum has made on its work.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

The stakeholder forum has made significant progress in its work to support the decision on the future of terrestrial television beyond 2034. The forum has gathered and presented evidence on many aspects of this very complex issue. The work of the forum will be vital in ensuring that we arrive at the best decision for both UK households and the television industry itself. A decision that maintains both universal television access, which is important, and the sustainable public service broadcaster ecosystem is what we are aiming for.

[Martin Vickers]

The Minister will be aware of a recent survey that shows that there is very little knowledge among the public of the future changes, but those who are aware are concerned about not only obtaining the service but its cost. What guarantees can the Minister give that the costs will not be too heavy?

[Ian Murray]

Those are all considerations for the working group. It has met four times already and is due to meet again in December. I have met the group to discuss these issues since I have been in post. Digital inclusion and connectivity, as well as the cost, are all active concerns and they will be weighed by Government when we make the decision, but let us not forget that this is a decision from 2034 onwards—nothing will change before that.

[David Mundell]

Older people and those in rural constituencies such as mine, which unfortunately still have unreliable broadband, rely on terrestrial television. The excellent Westminster Hall debate that I led demonstrated cross-party concern about this issue. Will the Minister meet me and other concerned MPs to discuss how we can safeguard terrestrial television?

[Ian Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has taken this issue forward. The Westminster Hall debate was very engaging and interesting, with contributions from across this House. I read the transcript of the debate just yesterday. As the stakeholder forum nears the end of its work and completes that process, I would be very happy to meet him. When the assessment is complete, my office will be in touch. It is always a pleasure to meet the right hon. Gentleman, and for the record, when we next meet, it is his round.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

4. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on funding for youth services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to help support small and medium-sized music recording studios.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is of course important to support our music industry, including studios, and that is at the heart of what we are trying to do through the music growth fund, which has £30 million in it. The music levy goes straight into grassroots music, supporting studios.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Greg Smith.

[Greg Smith]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and apologies for making it just in time. Chiltern Railways are entirely to blame.

I thank the Minister for that answer, however a couple of weeks ago I met my constituent Dom, who runs a small music studio. The cost pressures on the music industry coming from this Government are unsustainable at the moment, not least from business rates—even after yesterday’s announcement—employer national insurance and the minimum wage. With so many small music studios having closed in recent years in this country, how will the Government ensure that our music industry has a solid future?

[Ian Murray]

The creative industries sector plan is right at the heart of this Government’s industrial strategy, and music plays a key part in that. We will have the music 10-point plan shortly, and the £30 million music growth fund will support grassroots music, including those kinds of studio. I was at Co-op Live in Manchester just last month launching Discover! Creative Careers. It has a studio there, and it is trying to open up to the public. This is about access to studios and also about supporting them. I hope that the ticket levy, which we hope to get to 50% of all shows next year, can support studios, as well as the other growth projects we have in place.

[Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help increase the number of women and girls taking up sports in Greater Manchester.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the UK city of culture and UK town of culture competitions on local communities.

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

Strong evidence from the city of culture programme proves that supporting local culture pays both economic and social dividends for those areas and the wider public. The town of culture is a new competition to ensure that smaller places can share that real impact, by shining a spotlight on places and enabling them to tell their stories. The winner of the new town of culture competition will receive £3.5 million and, for the first time ever, as confirmed from the outset, the city of culture winner will receive £10 million. There has been much excitement about the new town of culture competition and I look forward to those bids coming in.

[Andrew Cooper]

Northwich and Winsford, in my constituency, have long punched well above their weight when it comes to cultural vibrancy and creativity. Winsford, in particular, has earned a proud reputation as an incubator for musical talent, with emerging acts, such The Luka State and The Voke, making waves on the national indie music scene. Meanwhile, Northwich has firmly established itself as the events capital of Cheshire, hosting standout occasions including the Now Northwich International Street Dance festival, The Charlatans’ North by Northwich takeover and, of course, the world-famous Piña Colada festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that Mid Cheshire makes an outstanding contribution to the UK’s cultural landscape, and will he consider supporting a joint bid from Northwich and Winsford for the town of culture competition?

[Ian Murray]

Mr Speaker, I would never presume to know your diary, but I feel as if we should go together to the Piña Colada festival, just to take one for the team and see what that is all about. Since I gave my answer to my hon. Friend’s substantive question, I have been lobbied by both Wigan and Scunthorpe for town of culture as I was sitting on the Front Bench. The culture and creativity celebrated by towns in Mid Cheshire is superb, as we have heard, and the examples my hon. Friend provided illustrate how the area is already showcasing local creativity and talent. We are thrilled that the UK town of culture competition will provide an excellent platform for towns like those, UK-wide, to highlight those causes, and we look forward to receiving bids from those towns, once the submission window opens shortly.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the innovation around the UK town of culture. My 10 seconds of fame as the Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in December 2017, when I went to Hull, the train broke down and I announced on “The One Show” that Coventry would be the UK city of culture. On behalf of Salisbury, which celebrates its 800th anniversary in 2027, may I ask if guidance can be given? Salisbury is a market town with a cathedral and we would love to apply, but given all our world-leading cultural assets we will need guidance about whether we qualify for the city or the town of culture.

[Ian Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably exaggerating when he says he had 10 seconds of fame—

[John Glen]

Maybe five seconds?

[Ian Murray]

I will meet him halfway and say seven and a half seconds. These are very exciting projects. As I said, I have already been lobbied by Wigan and Scunthorpe as I have been sitting on the Front Bench, and now I am being lobbied by Salisbury, so that shows the excitement around both the competitions. That is why we introduced the town of culture competition. I look forward to bids coming in and I am happy for officials to work with the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that the bid goes to the right competition.

[Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a cap on the resale of concert tickets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

T4.  Huddersfield contemporary music festival is the UK’s largest international festival dedicated to new music, and the programme this year has more than 30 world and UK premieres. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to this festival, which brings national and international musicians to Huddersfield every November, and will he set out what the Government are doing to ensure we invest in culture in towns like mine?

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

I highly commend the festival in Huddersfield. As an Edinburgh MP who is always championing festivals, the more music festivals and other arts festivals we have across the country, the better. I encourage everyone to go.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

T3.  Yesterday I had a roundtable meeting with a number of UK-based AI firms that have reached licensing agreements with owners of rights in the creative industries and publishing industries. Rather than just talking to big tech, will she and the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology meet those UK-based companies that are trying to do the right thing?

Bronze-age Heritage: Cambridgeshire

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

rose—

[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

Thursday 30th October 2025 Written Statements

[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

Wednesday 29th October 2025 General Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.)