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.

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.)

Draft Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th 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 Football Governance Act 2025 (Specified Competitions) Regulations 2025.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you as referee this afternoon, Ms Lewell. I am pleased to speak to the regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 October. This Committee is scheduled for 90 minutes, but I am hopeful that we will take only till half time, if not before—I might get an early bath. The puns probably will not stop there. Given the tight scope of the regulations, there is time for me to mention only one football club, which is Heart of Midlothian, who are currently eight points clear at the top of the Scottish Premier League thanks to a 3-1 win over Celtic on Sunday. That will keep everyone in Edinburgh—or certainly the bigger half of it—happy.

Back in July, the Government delivered on our election pledge to set up an Independent Football Regulator through the passing of the Football Governance Act 2025. The regulator is designed to protect football clubs in England only, to empower fans and to keep clubs at the heart of their communities. The regulator is the first of its kind and reflects the important and special place of football in our society and every single one of our communities. It will provide the certainty and sustainability required to drive future investment and growth so that English football continues to be the global success that it is.

We did not specify in the Act the clubs and competitions that will be within the scope of the regulator. This is in line with how other sports legislation works and will ensure that the regulator is able to react to any changes in the structure of the football pyramid in a timely manner. That is a really important point for the Committee to consider. For example, without the regulations the regime could not readily adapt to the restructuring or renaming of leagues, as in 1992 when the First Division became the Premier League, or in 2015 when the Football Conference was renamed the National League—that is the fifth tier of English football. That decision was made in the Act because, as we know, it is quicker and easier to amend legislation through delegated powers than through primary legislation.

During the Bill’s passage, there was much discussion about the scope of the regulator, across both Houses. The competitions within scope of the legislation are the same as Tracey Crouch’s 2021 fan-led review and the scope proposed by the previous Government in 2024— I draw the shadow Minister’s attention to that. The statutory instrument sets out the scope of the regulator as the Premier League competition, organised and administered by the Football Association Premier League; the Championship, League One and League Two competitions, organised and administered by the English Football League; and the Premier Division of the National League competition, organised and administered by the National League. The scope is based on years of work, evidence and consultation, including in the independent fan-led review. I thank everyone who corresponded with the previous Government on that review and, of course, Tracey Crouch for taking it forward.

The issues that concern the regulator, such as financial mismanagement, unsuitable owners and the distribution of revenue among leagues, are most prevalent and stark in the top five professional leagues of English men’s football. We do not believe that extending the scope beyond the top five tiers would be proportionate, and the burdens on smaller clubs would outweigh the benefits of the regulations.

On the possibility of the women’s game being within the scope of the regulator, Karen Carney led an independent review of domestic women’s football that was published in July 2023. Her review recommended that the women’s game should be given the opportunity to self-regulate rather than moving immediately to statutory regulation. The Government support that recommendation. The systemic financial issues that led to the creation of the legislation for the men’s game are not mirrored in the women’s game, which is at a different stage of development and growth, and we do not feel it is necessary to include it within the scope at this stage.

However, the Government acknowledge that the circumstances may change, which is why the review of the Act, to be conducted within five years of the commencement of the licensing regime, will look again at the scope to include women’s football if necessary. The Secretary of State can carry out an assessment of the regulator’s scope, and would consult the regulator itself, the Football Association and other stakeholders as appropriate.

This statutory instrument is another important step in the overall set-up and commencement of the Independent Football Regulator. For too long, football clubs have been mismanaged, been run by unsuitable owners, and not listened to fans. The Government are changing that today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I will start where my hon. Friend finished. The whole point of the Football Regulator and this statutory instrument is to give power back to the fans, for the very specific reasons that he talks about at Sheffield Wednesday. We could all reel off a dozen clubs that have fallen into problems because of ownership in recent history, including Bury, Derby, Bolton, Morecambe and Blackpool. A whole host of clubs have fallen into problems because of the way they were run.

Football is a magnet for people who want to invest their money, but it has also become a magnet for people who think they can make some money out of it. Indeed, for many, it is an ego trip. I would maybe even argue that in the case of my own Heart of Midlothian football club, it was a money laundering exercise for the Russian oligarch who held it before. The common thread is that it is the fans who pay the price. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, said exactly the same thing in talking about how our football clubs are at the heart of our communities.

Before the club went into administration, many Sheffield Wednesday fans would have been completely bereft at the thought of a Saturday afternoon coming along when they would not have to commiserate with each other that Sheffield Wednesday had lost again, at not being able to celebrate the highs as well as the lows, and at having their lives without Sheffield Wednesday. Any football fan will completely appreciate that the fans are the lifeblood of the game. It is famously said that the game is nothing without the fans.

The principle behind the Football Regulator—a principle that the shadow Minister used to share—is that football is for the fans, and the fans have in some circumstances have been taken for granted, as we have just heard. That is the whole point of this draft statutory instrument. It is defined in scope, but I am glad, Ms Lewell, that you allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East to make those points slightly wider than scope, because it shows that this is needed in football. Having the Premier League, the Championship, League One and League Two, and the National League as the feeder league into the top four leagues, as part of that is important. They are all covered.

I appreciate—the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned this, I am sure in the spirit of the game—that this will burden some smaller clubs in the National League with additional responsibilities when they should be running the football club, training the kids and making sure they can have the Harry Kanes of the future—whoever that is. The bottom line, however, is that the National League is feeding the major leagues, and it needs to be part of this to make sure that those clubs are properly run and properly resourced, because it is about sustainability. A sustainable pyramid makes the whole pyramid much stronger.

The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup asked if there would be a review. There will be—a review is written into the Act, on the face of the primary legislation. On three up, three down, that is a matter for the footballing authorities and the game itself to resolve, but the strength of the three up, three down argument could be enhanced by having a structure in the National League to mean that the clubs have fit and proper owners, are properly run and are in compliance with the Football Regulator. The regime is very much a light-touch one, and it is important to see that through the lens of not just new owners, but existing owners, looking at football as a whole in those top five leagues in England.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issues around the chair of the new Football Regulator. I was delighted that the chair was endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It was really important that that was done. Now the regulator can get on with doing the work, as things have been going on for too long.

I am not sure where the Opposition were coming from, because the Act is in essence their legislation. We made a few tweaks to it along the way, and the other place made a few more, and attempted some major tweaks. It is stuff that the shadow Minister used to agree with. In fact, his party made arguments in the past about how important the Football Governance Act would be for football and for sustainability in football, putting the power back in the supporters’ hands where it should lie. Now they say they are not keen on it and that it will jeopardise football: I am not sure what their angle is. Fans across the country will wonder why the previous Government, who introduced this regime through the Tracey Crouch review, are now standing wholeheartedly against it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I have allowed some kickabout in the debate, but can we please stick to the legislation before us?

[Ian Murray]

I will take your guidance, Ms Lewell. In response to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East, I will say that when the Opposition lose the argument, they do not take the ball, they take the man. I think that that is what we are seeing.

[Mr French]

A strange dynamic is going on here: we seem to be pretending that the Secretary of State and the chairman of the new Football Regulator are not under investigation. That is what is happening. That is not my investigation; that is an investigation that is taking place. That brings the whole regulator into question, and its independence. That is the point.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Member is aware that that is not in the scope of the draft statutory instrument before us.

[Ian Murray]

The chairman of the new regulator declared his donations before the said CMS Committee, which endorsed his chairmanship.

Implementing this regime to help to protect clubs in financial peril and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first is a priority for this Government. It was a priority for the previous Government as well, and it has been lost. That is why work is under way to deliver the next phase of the Independent Football Regulator regime as quickly as possible. Defining the exact scope of the Independent Football Regulator is a key step in delivering that.

The IFR will need time to get fully up and running. The newly appointed CEO, chair and board members need to build up the staff, continue to consult the industry, work with fans and football clubs and understand the new requirements. The regulator will have heard the shadow Minister’s comments about the burdens on smaller clubs from the National League, and I hope it takes that on board. I am sure that there will be support for that to happen. This Government look forward to working with parliamentary colleagues to deliver the remaining secondary legislation required to enact the Independent Football Regulator’s key powers later this year.

In conclusion, people who support football clubs that are not a global product, whether they are in Wales, Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, or just go along to their local school pitch on a Saturday morning to watch their eight-year-old kick a ball around, are the lifeblood of football. This is about making sure that the game is sustainable. Let us never, ever have a situation where Government stand on the opposite side of the road while great clubs like Sheffield Wednesday, which are the lifeblood of our communities, go to the wall.

Question put.

Mandatory Digital ID

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for his speech. It was a very good speech, but suffered from the big disadvantage of none of it being actually accurate in terms of what the policy is and what digital ID is supposed to be about.

Let me start by saying—I mean this seriously and I mean it passionately in my defence of Parliament and Government—that it is okay to debate these things. There is a huge number of people in Westminster Hall today who want to debate this subject. An hour may not be enough, and no doubt we will come back to these issues on several occasions. But there is something that is really important. There is a real task for us all to do as custodians of democracy, which is to have this debate from the perspective of the facts that are out there and not to peddle myths.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said clearly in an intervention that all we have heard is the myths. I hope I can bust some of those myths to give comfort to some of our constituents that this scheme is not what is being portrayed by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and what we have heard in many of the contributions. We have a real responsibility to make sure that we have proper debates—with the facts, not with what we read on social media.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Minister says that we are “custodians of democracy”. On the back of that, and in the light of his comments, I ask this: will the Government commit to a direct vote in the House, a free vote on the digital ID scheme before it is rolled out and becomes mandatory in any form? The public and their elected representatives deserve clarity and choice.

[Ian Murray]

A full consultation will be launched by the end of this year. There are two options that the Government could have taken. We could have started from the position of a fully fledged programme, a fully fledged policy, and then taken that out to consultation; or we could take the approach that we are doing at the moment, which is to go out to consultation after we have had some initial consultation with people, so that the formal consultation is shaped by people’s views and the concerns that they raise.

I will give two examples, which are from the island of Ireland and from Northern Ireland and in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement. These are things that have to be resolved. We now know they are big issues, and that will go into the consultation to try to resolve them. We cannot have it both ways. We have chosen to take this particular approach in order to develop a consultation—

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress and I will give way. I want to read Members this paragraph:

“We will develop and establish a trusted and secure service for users to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service. Users will be able to store their information and choose to share it when applying to public services. This will improve a user’s access to services by providing a safe and secure way to prove their identity, while reducing time and cost for the public sector. Additionally, we will develop an inclusive approach for all users to ensure that…services are available for”

all, particularly those who are digitally excluded. That is from the Scottish Government in 2021. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire’s own party as the Scottish Government is developing this; it is actually SNP policy.

Let me just bust some of the myths. This is not a Brit card. I know that members of the SNP like to call it a Brit card, because that is what gives them traction in the way in which they constitutionally do these things, but it is not a Brit card. And let me just deal with the issue about compulsion and mandation, because everyone stands up and calls this mandatory digital ID. It is not mandatory. That is the wrong thing to say to our constituents. It is not compulsory in this country to have a passport, but one is mandatory to travel. If someone wants to travel on a flight, even an internal flight, in this country, they require that ID to be able to travel. It is not compulsory to hold a passport, but it is mandatory to use one for travel. It is exactly the same in this particular instance. It is not compulsory to have one. People will not be asked to show it; they will not be asked to produce it. There is a whole host of use cases that would be voluntary—

[Graham Leadbitter]

The Prime Minister said that this was mandatory if people wanted to work in the UK, so for every single person who wants to work in the UK it is mandatory. Is that not pretty much a compulsory ID card?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.

[Jim Shannon]

How will the Minister and the Government react to the united political opposition from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, nationalist and Unionist, to the ID card? How can the Minister and the Government pursue something that is so unanimously opposed by everyone in Northern Ireland?

[Ian Murray]

Let me address that point directly. I have already been to Northern Ireland and spoken to all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I have also been to the Republic to speak to the Irish Government about the processes that they have. In fact, they are about to introduce a similar scheme, because all EU countries have to have a scheme up and running by 2026. We fully understand the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and nationality in Northern Ireland—that people can be British, Irish or both—and that will all have to be built into the system. As a Government, we have taken on board those legitimate concerns—not the myths. I have heard them directly from all parties in Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that those are resolved as part of the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the consultation to make sure that those are resolved.

[Martin Wrigley]

It is not much of a consultation if the Government have already said, very vocally, that they are going to do it. It is really a question of how hard they want to beat people.

[Ian Murray]

Of course it is a consultation. It is about how we get this right, what it looks like, how it is built, how federated data is secured, how we deal with digital inclusion and how we deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is what the consultation is about. It is about the Government learning from that. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but their own leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said on 21 September that “times have changed”, and that he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal Government had brought in digital ID. He said that if a system was

“giving individuals power to access public services”,

he could be in favour. Four days later, he said that

“the Liberal Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail”.

It is the same hypocrisy as the Scottish National party; it was their policy five days before they came out against it.

[Victoria Collins]

I would just highlight that what was stated was about the system being voluntary and about choice. We are saying that a mandatory system is a problem. Do this Government want to grow this economy or not? Do they want to give people who want to work a real choice? I do not see that at all.

[Ian Murray]

This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up.

Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I do not have time.

The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions.

I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services.

The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

As someone who used to manage a local band called Squeezebox when at university—available at all bad record stores—I understand that grassroots music is the lifeblood of the music industry. The Government have committed to supporting the live music industry’s introduction of a voluntary levy on tickets for stadium and arena shows and that money will be ploughed straight into the grassroots music sector. The Government are providing up to £30 million for the music growth package, which will provide further Government support to grassroots venues by fostering domestic growth, talent development and music exports.

[Luke Taylor]

Grassroots music venues across the country, particularly across London, are finding it increasingly difficult to survive as customers are spending less when they come to gigs because of the cost of living crisis. Will the Minister explain the progress on the levy? Will he consider the Lib Dem calls to reverse the national insurance rise on small businesses to give venues such as the Sound Lounge and the CryerArts Centre in Sutton, which are so valued by our local community, the best chance to survive and thrive?

[Ian Murray]

The hon. Gentleman lays out the difficulties, of which there are many, for the live music sector and potentially the venues, many of them in his constituency. We want to see 50% of all ticket sales for stadium and arena shows in 2026 enter that music levy; that is this Government’s aspiration and we encourage all ticket providers to do so. In the autumn 2024 Budget, as he suggests, the Chancellor set out plans to transform the business rates system over this Parliament. Those reforms will provide certainty and support to businesses, including music venues. The Government have been engaging with the live music sector on business rates reforms and will set out further policy details in next month’s Budget.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to his place and I look forward to working with him—I am delighted to hear that he is a keen musician. Since Brexit, British musicians’ European tours have dropped by around 9% year on year, as a mountain of bureaucracy blocks those hoping to cut their teeth on the European circuit. In Frome and East Somerset, I am lucky to have musicians who travel in Europe, but who will not have a team of people to do the paperwork for them. Will the Minister update us on what tangible steps have been taken for touring artists since the so-called reset deal, so that our musicians can take centre stage in Europe once more?

[Ian Murray]

Let me correct the record. I did not say that I was a musician; I said that I managed a band. I would not like that to be incorrectly recorded in Hansard. In any case, I thank the hon. Lady for the encouragement.

This matter is a priority for this Government to try and resolve. It was mentioned in the UK-EU reset summit agreement. We are working hard with the Paymaster General, who takes forward those negotiations. I am already in touch with the European Commissioner for culture. I can assure the hon. Lady that we will do everything we possibly can to get the agreement and the commitment over the line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

8. What recent discussions she has had with relevant stakeholders on the potential impact of changes to the listed places of worship grant scheme on listed places of worship.

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

On this issue, the Secretary of State met my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) in her role as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). In March 2025, my noble Friend the Minister for Heritage met the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, my noble Friend Lord Khan of Burnley, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea and church representatives, as well as visiting Salisbury cathedral and St Michael Le Belfrey in York.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer, but I am not sure the Government have understood the level of uncertainty and panic that has set in following their approach to this grant scheme. Some of the most cherished buildings in our constituencies are waiting on clarity for when the Government will come forward with concrete steps to extend this scheme. What will happen after March 2026? I would be grateful if the Minister could give us that clarity now.

[Ian Murray]

This is an incredibly serious issue, but the Conservatives did not allocate any funding for it at all when they were in government, and therefore we are left with the current situation. I reiterate to those who may wish to use the listed places of worship grant scheme that £13.7 million is left in that scheme. Grants are capped at £25,000, but the analysis from the Department is that 94% of all applications are unaffected by this change because most claims are under £5,000. There is plenty of money left in the pot for this year, and I would encourage them to use it.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

9. What steps her Department plans to take to help increase access to grassroots sport facilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

T6. Communities in my constituency have been devastated by the destruction of Shotley Park, a grade II listed building, in a recent fire. I understand that an investigation is going on into the circumstances, but can the Minister say in more general terms what steps we can take to protect our listed buildings and the memories they represent for local people?

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

There is no specific duty on owners to keep their buildings in a good state of repair, but local authorities have powers under legislation to take action where a listed building may be at risk, through urgent works notices and repairs notices. The Government also support local authorities by providing funding for conservation projects, and they are consulting on reforms to make it easier for homeowners to protect their historic properties while preserving their unique character. There is also the buildings at risk register, and I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to her local authority to see what can be done to help,

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

T2. As a committed if rather untalented member of the Lords and Commons tennis team, I am aware that the vagaries of British weather make participation difficult, particularly in autumn and winter. Will the Secretary of State allow any of the £400 million for grassroots sport to be used to create more covered tennis facilities, so that participation can be encouraged and the future of British talent can be nourished?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

T3. The town of Bodmin in my constituency is fast becoming the museum capital of Cornwall. It has the excellent Discovering42 science museum, Bodmin Town museum, and the Army museum at Bodmin Keep, which is battling for survival and crowdfunding to stay open. What is the Minister doing to support those brilliant smaller museums that have such huge economic, social and educational value, especially given that the shared prosperity fund is about to end?

[Ian Murray]

This Government applaud and support the role that museums play in educating and inspiring audiences, including in Cornwall and across every part of the country in every Member’s constituency. Last week the Government announced that 75 museum groups around the country will benefit from an additional £20 million of funding as part of the museum renewal fund, delivered by Arts Council England. Together with our new £25 million investment in regional museums via the aptly named museum estate and development fund, which is to be announced in the new year, that represents a considerable show of support for local museums across the country, on top of the £44 million allocated by Arts Council England.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

You may be interested to know, Mr Speaker, that today is the launch of Peterborough tourist board, and our new Discover Peterborough website. That brings together our great attractions, such as our 900-year-old cathedral and our great museum, as well as the great outdoors such as Nene park and Flag Fen. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the formation of Discover Peterborough, and say what more she can do to support the visitor economy and great attractions in places such as mine?

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T4. In a stunning setting with superb facilities, Garsington Opera in Stokenchurch provides incredible training opportunities for young people who want a career in the arts. Does the Minister agree that this is a vital facility, and what more will she do to ensure that all young people who want a career in the arts have those training opportunities?

[Ian Murray]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the DCMS ministerial team and the entire Government are fully committed to ensuring that there is full access to training and skills in the arts. I would be happy to meet him to discuss that project, but if any young person in any part of this land wants to get into the arts, this Government are for them.

[Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)]

I understand from a number of people who work at the National Coal Mining Museum for England in Wakefield that unfortunately there is an intractable dispute there. My constituents have asked me to put two questions to the Minister. First, will she say how proud we are as a country that we have a national museum of coalmining to celebrate the history of the mines? Secondly, if necessary, will she seek to secure an agreement between the disagreeing parties at the museum?

Gaming Machines and Bingo Venues: Licensing Consultation

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 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 family entertainment sector makes an important contribution to local communities, particularly in seaside towns, and bingo venues are a traditional cornerstone of the leisure sector enjoyed across the country. However, commercial pressures mean we have seen a number of closures of licensed family entertainment centres and bingo clubs in recent years. The Government are keen to explore ways to support both sectors, preserving the heritage of family-run amusement piers and bingo halls while supporting innovative and vibrant new offerings, and to ensure that the regulatory regime that applies to them is fit for purpose. Doing so will help to support our wider growth mission, and help to ensure a sustainable and socially responsible land-based gambling sector.

I therefore wish to inform the House that we have today published a consultation on category D gaming machines and licensing for bingo venues.

Stake and prize limits for category D gaming machines

Family entertainment centres predominantly site category D gaming machines. These are low-stakes machines, categorised by the Gambling Commission as suitable for under-18s to play, and include seaside staples such as crane grabs and penny pushers. Stakes and prizes for category D machines have not changed since 2014, while inflation has limited the ability of operators to offer appealing prizes. As this category encompasses a wide variety of machines, we are seeking views on maintaining or increasing current stake and prize limits, in order to support commercial sustainability and operator investment in venues housing category D machines. In line with this, we are also seeking feedback on proposals to adjust the sub-categories for certain category D machines, to reflect new game mechanics and distinguish machines that more closely resemble adult gambling activities from lower-risk games. This will ensure that any changes to stakes and prizes to support growth in the sector are underpinned by an appropriate and proportionate framework.

Age limit for “cash-out” slot-style category D machines

The Government are also consulting on an age limit for certain category D gaming machines. The Gambling Act review concluded that machines which mirror adult slot machines and pay out in cash—also known as cash-out slot-style category D machines—should not be available to children. Therefore, we are proposing to make it a criminal offence to invite, cause or permit anyone under the age of 18 to play these particular types of machines. This builds on the existing voluntary commitment implemented in 2021 by Bacta, the amusement and gaming machine industry trade body, banning under-18s from playing this type of machine in their members’ venues, by introducing the same protections across the whole sector.

Licensing for bingo venues

Recent years have seen change and innovation in the bingo sector: this includes new concepts combining bingo with nightlife, electronic terminals allowing customers to play on a tablet, and smaller premises emerging alongside traditional bingo clubs. While we are keen to support innovation and the continued popularity of bingo, there are a growing number of licensed bingo premises which predominantly site gaming machines and are difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres.

To support the sector and provide clarity for customers in the changing landscape of land-based gambling, the Government are seeking views on measures to create a clearer distinction between adult gaming centres and bingo premises. This will ensure that all premises have a licence type that is appropriate to their offering. The key proposal we are consulting on is requiring a “bingo area”. This would occupy a minimum proportion of venue floor space, in all licensed bingo venues, where customers can enjoy a bingo game, whether they play on paper or a tablet, in a linked or a local game. This will make bingo the primary option within such venues, protecting the offering to customers and supporting the industry. It will also close the loophole that permits the consumption of alcohol in machine-led venues, when this is prohibited in adult gaming centres. We are also consulting on rules for the bingo area, including prohibiting larger gaming machines and requiring a minimum number of positions for bingo.

I would encourage those in this House who care strongly about gambling policy, as well as relevant stakeholders, to share their views through this consultation. I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS964]

Building Digital UK: Integration into Department

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Written Statements

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

Today I am announcing that Building Digital UK will be integrated into the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology from 1 November 2025. BDUK is currently an executive agency of the Department and will become a directorate within the Digital Technologies and Infrastructure group.

This move comes following the Cabinet Office’s review into arm’s length bodies, launched in April. The decision continues DSIT’s growth into the UK Government’s Department of digital delivery, helping to accelerate innovation and drive economic growth across the country. It builds on the integration of other digital delivery bodies, including the Government Digital Service and the Central Digital and Data Office, into DSIT.

BDUK will continue to lead the delivery of the Government’s vital digital infrastructure programmes, Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. These programmes remain central to the Government’s plan for change and 10-year infrastructure strategy, supported by £1.9 billion of funding announced in the spending review.

Thanks to BDUK’s work, we have already achieved 85% gigabit broadband coverage across the UK, and 95% 4G coverage, meeting both these targets a year ahead of schedule.

Integrating BDUK into DSIT will ensure that its operational expertise is embedded at the heart of Government, enabling more effective delivery of digital infrastructure and supporting our wider ambition to accelerate innovation and drive economic growth across the UK.

We will work closely with staff, unions and stakeholders to manage the integration over the coming months.

[HCWS938]