Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on the way he introduced it and spoke up for those who signed the petition.

I have some sympathy for the position that Leo and the other signatories set out opposing restrictions on social media for under-16s. When the debate on this issue began, I was initially sceptical that increasing the age limit was the appropriate response; there are many good uses of tech for young people that they should be free to explore. However, the wider debate has been running for some considerable time. Nearly 20 years have passed since I was working for T-Mobile on the Byron review, which looked at online child safety. The focus then was on platforms taking responsibility for protecting young people. Sadly, they have failed to do that. On balance, therefore, I agree that the evidence and experience demonstrate that increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know that social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content, with damaging and, very sadly, tragic consequences.

The Conservatives believe that parents have ultimate responsibility for their children, but we also acknowledge the challenge they face in keeping their children safe online. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) set out this point clearly: an activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and amplified online. That is why the shadow Education Secretary, as well as my noble Friend Lord Nash and many hon. Members from across the House campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms, working with parents and bereaved families. I welcome the announcement the Government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms that will protect children and help parents.

However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation. In that context, I was concerned by Ofcom’s recent report on the Online Safety Act, which found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That is clearly disappointing and worrying. Laws need to be implemented effectively.

The Government have said they intend to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, to take effect in the spring. Can the Minister confirm that that timetable remains the same? If it is, when will the regulations be published, given we are now in November? We should, as others have said, learn from Australia’s restrictions and where they have been bypassed. Last week, Ofcom published its review of age-verification tools and recommended four methods: photo ID, digital ID, face-age estimation technology, and banking-based checks. Supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age-checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data, so that review raises a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister.

First, does the Minister agree that, as far as possible, information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum the requirement to provide photo ID and use face-scanning technology as much as possible? Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, so what protections should be in place for users’ data? For the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? In that report, Ofcom estimates that around 150,000 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK hold neither a passport nor a provisional driving licence. How will the Government inform those young people of options such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? Is the Minister looking at age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but of reducing friction for adults accessing social media?

Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that does not mean that we should take no action. Having effective controls and penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom spoke about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under-16s being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective.

Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to “strengthen device-level protections” to prevent

“children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 917.]

What progress has there been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed secure commitments from major tech companies to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed?

Our role as legislators is to ensure that the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate. Protecting children from harm is a duty that all Members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. The public consultation and the conversations that I have had show that there is support for action to introduce effective age-based access to social media as part of wider measures to protect children. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right.

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate. It gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale, as an example of our living cultural heritage. This debate has been all one way so far and I will not be changing that.

Cask ale is more than a drink; it reflects the combination of craftmanship, knowledge, tradition and community. Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt. My own county of Norfolk has a fine real ale brewing tradition, with our first-class malted barley. I should mention Duration Brewing in West Acre and its Grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge.

As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub. Its significance lies not only in what is brewed, but in the craftmanship involved, in how it is made and served, and in how it brings people together. Because the final conditioning happens at the pub, both the brewer and the publican must have specialist knowledge. Much of that knowledge is practical and acquired through experience, and skills are often passed through generations. It is precisely that kind of living knowledge that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect. Our brewing traditions reflect our local areas and local beer styles. By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations.

The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024. I was talking to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured the ratification to support awareness of heritage and potentially increase demand across our country. For cask ale, such awareness could help support inward tourism—we have heard about the importance that people attach to the experience of a pint in a pub across the country.

This debate comes at a time when the sector is facing challenges, as we have heard. SIBA has reported a 20% reduction in cask consumption year on year—part of a longer-term decline. Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) railing against Carlsberg’s recent decision. Breweries benefitting from small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market—up from 40% a decade ago. Small brewer success is centred on local pubs, community spaces and taprooms offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy.

It is also important to recognise the role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, by introducing new people to the delights and the taste of cask ale. The Norwich beer festival is this week, and I heartily recommend it to everyone. I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it.

Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. The Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. The practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of hon. Members have referred to, which was introduced by the last Government. Along with many members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take 10p off a pint. We also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices.

Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us when she expects a final decision to be taken? Will she also confirm how the Government intend to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15, regarding measures to safeguard living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show that cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments; it is about traditions, customs and our communities.

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State set out, the order introduces a new public interest test for mergers, enabling Government intervention where a transaction could threaten continuity of telecoms services. I think the objectives to protect critical infrastructure, safeguard public services and ensure that vulnerable customers are not left without connectivity will be supported across the Committee. However, the context for the order is a specific case concerning BT, TalkTalk and the 2.5 million customers involved—including, BT informs me, 5,000 in my North West Norfolk constituency. It also highlights regulatory gaps when a company in this sector may simply fold, and the need to protect customers. We will not oppose the order, but it raises important questions about the speed of the process, the potential impact on competition and, importantly, investor sentiment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for her to come to the Committee, which underlines the concerns that are shared across parts of the sector.

Let me turn first to the speed at which the intervention notice and the statutory instrument have come forward. As the Secretary of State said, she issued the notice on 5 October. The Competition and Markets Authority was then given only 10 working days to consider the transaction. Interested parties in a dynamic sector had only a few days to make representations on a detailed transaction. There is a concern that the transaction will further entrench BT’s significant role in the retail and wholesale markets. The Competition and Markets Authority has completed the phase 1 report, but we do not know what is in it or whether the Secretary of State will judge that a phase 2 study is appropriate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that adding this intervention power to the Enterprise Act through the order will provide the Government with a basis to override any competition concerns raised by the CMA or other parties?

Of course, vulnerable consumers and public services need to be protected. Having worked in the telecoms sector a little while ago, when T-Mobile was still a retail brand in the UK, I am a little surprised that existing legislation, general conditions and other Ofcom powers could not have been used in this scenario. Can the Secretary of State assure the Committee that all alternatives were looked at? Outwith the order, is she looking further at this point and at how a supplier of last resort regime could be introduced, with reference to models from other essential services?

Clearly, the transaction raises competition issues. Given the comments that were made when the intervention notice was issued and the approach taken with the order, the Government risk creating the impression that the outcome has effectively been decided in advance, limiting the ability of the competition authority to discharge its role in full. We should be very careful before setting aside competition implications for wider public interest considerations, particularly when the goal set by the Secretary of State—avoiding the loss of service—has been achieved. Clearly, we want to avoid any precedent where financial distress enables further market consolidation without appropriate scrutiny.

How do the Government intend to reassure inward investors that the principle of encouraging competitive markets and investment remains to the fore? Can the Secretary of State assure other players in the sector that she will consider seriously the competitive impacts that may have been raised by the CMA—they have certainly been raised by a number of companies that have spoken to me—when she decides what the next steps are? Is she confident that the CMA had sufficient opportunity, in only 10 working days, to fully assess the implications of the transaction? Can she indicate when she might respond to the referral?

We support the objective of the order in protecting consumers and maintaining vital telecoms services; however, we also support effective competition, proper scrutiny and confidence in the independence of the process. I therefore look forward to the Secretary of State’s response to the concerns and questions I have raised.

Media Green Paper

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate and setting out the issues in his usual, informed way, based on his expertise. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed. The way we consume broadcast media is moving away from the traditional channels towards the huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms.

I was struck by the Minister’s introduction to the Green Paper, in which he referred to watching “Noel’s House Party” on a Saturday with his family. I did the same, but that experience would be totally alien to many young people today—as reflected in the data, which shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year. It was seen by more people every month than all BBC channels combined. Furthermore, video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. The Green Paper is therefore right to grapple with some of the questions and implications.

Let me begin with an area that has not been mentioned where there is common cause, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas that has been covered in the debate is the plan to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms. That may be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the free society that we enjoy.

Are the Government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB News, which Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members have criticised and refused to appear on? Media organisations would benefit from the prominence regime only if they received approval from the state. That effectively means that a state body would decide what journalism people see.

That would also have the effect of reducing visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press. How would trustworthy news be defined? The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition. That potentially covers thousands of titles and is so broad as to be meaningless. Many think this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only news publishers approved by a regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

On that note, does my hon. Friend also make that link to the licence fee? The reason we have a licence fee, rather than paying through general taxation, is so that the BBC does not fear decisions that Ministers may make. The Government say they want to renew the licence fee, but at the same time are putting in place something that would take away the very reason for a licence fee instead of taxation.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the licence fee and the independence that it provides.

Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation, with individuals determining the sources of content they trust and want to access. User controls and labelling already exist. The Green Paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals.

However, we should note that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation being able to do so. Police forces now share more information as a result. Furthermore, where there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether that is local papers, radio stations or public service media.

More broadly, Ofcom found that more than three quarters of people think it important to check different sources if they are unsure whether a news story is true. That provides some reassurance.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am quite concerned about the increasing use of AI-generated summaries online, which rely on what we call trusted sources. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s points about what defines a trusted source, and I am sure the Minister will answer all his important questions, but I am concerned that in future, if people become more reliant on AI summaries rather than on primary sources, those trusted sources might no longer exist. Does he recognise the importance of people not relying on AI summaries to get their news?

[James Wild]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. We should be having more and much longer debates about precisely these issues. I hope the Minister will at least rule out any notion that to qualify for prominence, if such a scheme is put in place, a publisher would need to sign up to a state-approved regulator.

On the proposals for the digital switch-off from either 2034 or 2044, latest Barb data shows that 2.6 million households rely on terrestrial TV because they do not have broadband or internet-connected TV. However, usage is also declining; we have heard about the pressure that that puts on broadcasters using those channels to get to a declining level of households. For many of my constituents, including older people, people in low-income households, and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview remains essential. By 2034, according to the impact assessment in the Green Paper, 1.5 million households could still be reliant on traditional broadcast platforms.

There are serious challenges to be addressed, not least in respect of proper broadband access. The Government must therefore have answers and must have what the Secretary of State referred to as “watertight” plans. Any switch-off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the Minister to provide clarity on the timeline for the decision on switch-off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind.

On the broader issue of the prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter 4 of the Green Paper states that the Government’s preference is that that be subject to “industry-led, voluntary agreements”. That must be the right approach. YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there is no attempt in the Green Paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the Government go down that route. It is clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to that approach without imposing excessive costs will be challenging. In conclusion, the Green Paper focuses on a changing landscape and poses a series of fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and look forward to working with him in the coming months. He will have heard that the review of business rates for pubs and hotels announced just a few weeks ago by the Chancellor has been welcomed by a number of people, including the CEO of UKHospitality, who said it was a “positive move”. Under this Government we have seen the biggest investment in the tourism sector: the £6.3 billion Universal Studios investment at Bedford. It was a pleasure to be there a few weeks ago.

Independent Football Regulator

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

It is difficult to know where to start, given the number of inaccuracies in that statement, but I will have a go. First of all, I did not “forget” to declare the donations; if the hon. Gentleman had read the report—he obviously has not—he would know that the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments was convinced that I did not know about those donations, and that as soon as I did know about them, I chose to declare them and recused myself from the process. He might want to reflect on that. Secondly, I think that his quote about Boris Johnson related to the abolition of the Department for International Development; he might want to go and check that as well. I have heard quite a few comments from him recently, on social media and elsewhere, about the accuracy of things said at this Dispatch Box. I absolutely stand by what I have said, and the next time he comes to this House, he might want to do a bit of homework first.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I have to say, I am quite surprised at the lack of contrition from the Secretary of State, given a very damning report. In November 2024, Mr Kogan withdrew from the application process because, he said, there was

“a lot of noise going around about Labour donors”,

but in March, in a move that the commissioner said was “highly unusual”, Mr Kogan’s candidacy was reinstated, and he was rapidly sifted, interviewed and appointed. Are the public really expected to believe that this was an open and fair process, when the decision-makers took donations from the candidate?

[Lisa Nandy]

Again, I think the hon. Gentleman should have more respect for the independence of these processes. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments investigated this thoroughly and found that the breach of the code was unknowing. Nevertheless, I have taken full responsibility for it.

I have to say that the Conservatives have some brass neck; when their shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), was in government, she broke the ministerial code and was told to resign, but refused to do so, and she is now one of their most senior Ministers.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

James Wild Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend not only for putting this issue on the record, but for raising it with me privately on a number of occasions—I know how committed she is. May I associate myself with her words about good football club owners? We firmly believe that this Bill will provide the clarity and certainty that allows good owners to invest without being outbid or having to compete with people who mean our clubs ill. I, too, have an extremely good owner at Wigan Athletic. We are fortunate to have him, and we know how important such owners are.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

During covid, non-league clubs took DCMS sport survival loans, but their repayment now threatens the viability of some. Will the Secretary of State assure fans that she will do all she can to assist them? As my local club, King’s Lynn Town, are in active discussions with Sport England about their loan, will she or the Sports Minister agree to meet me to discuss that?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which affects many clubs around the country. The Department continues to engage regularly with fans and sporting governing bodies that are facing difficulties—not just in football, but across the board. We are working constructively to help support them, and I would be delighted to provide him with a further update on the individual case that he mentions.

We are determined to meet our commitments and promises to fans. We have improved the Bill explicitly to require clubs to provide effective engagement with their supporters, and to consult fans on changes to ticket prices and on any proposals to relocate their home ground.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town.

Other Members have referred to the success of the premier league and the fact that the EFL is one of the best attended in Europe. Football, we should take it as read, is a success story. I want to focus on the risks posed to the game by the Bill and regulation. Indeed, even the Government concede that the new regime and distribution provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented. The objectives of sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding heritage and strengthening engagement are supported by fans, but much of that is already happening under the existing rules of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL.

My concern—the one I expressed in the previous Parliament when we debated a similar Bill—is that it will lead to overreach and over-regulation. We have heard bids already from across other parts of the House to load burdens on football, including protecting car parks. The Prime Minister has said on regulation:

“the key test…Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to…unlock investment?”

Yet he is creating a new regulator that will take £100 million out of the game, including for smaller clubs, and regulatory scope and costs will inexorably increase. The task of the regulator is already vast. It will have to approve business plans for 116 clubs as part of licensing. Applying such banking-style regulation to a sport is inappropriate.

The provisions on revenues of course attract a lot of attention. Let us be clear here: the Government are taking powers through the backstop to mandate the division of commercial revenues. These are unprecedented powers that will cause significant regulatory and investment uncertainty. There is a voluntary agreement at the moment, which is essential to the health of the game and to get funds flowing through the pyramid. The backstop, which is meant to be a last resort, is now the frontstop. The EFL has been very clear that it is waiting for the provisions to come into force and it will not agree to anything until then. The Government have made the situation worse by including the parachute payments, which will prevent clubs that want to invest when they get promoted and take a risk so they can compete from doing so, which will weaken the competitiveness of the game.

Then there is the untried binding final offer arbitration model. Rather than considering the proposals put forward by the Premier League and EFL to determine which is the best approach—it may be a compromise between the two—we have a Russian roulette approach where the regulator has to pick one or the other. Lord Birt put forward an amendment in the other place to introduce an approach based on commercial arbitration instead of that model, which incentivises gaming. The Secretary of State had some warm words for what Lord Birt had done in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister, in winding up, can clarify whether the Government are still talking to Lord Birt and other legal experts in the other place, with the intention of changing the flawed backstop model.

To conclude, the Bill would introduce unprecedented regulation of our national game. There are clear risks, through excessive regulation the Bill will introduce, to the very elements that make football the great success it is. That is why I will be opposing the Bill. The Government and the Prime Minister will be rightly held responsible if they get it wrong and undermine football.

English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) on securing the debate. I declare an interest: I am a Norwich City fan and a King�s Lynn Town supporter.

The premier league is the most viewed league in the world and supports 90,000 jobs across the country, and league one is also very popular, so football is a success. I want to focus on the governance proposals, particularly in the Football Governance Bill. All fans would sign up to the key objectives of ensuring financial sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions and protecting heritage, but my concerns are about possible over-regulation and overreach. I welcome the amendments that have been tabled in the other place to introduce a growth duty into the Bill, which the Government previously resisted.

Of course, the provisions on revenues attract the most attention. Let us be clear that the proposal is for the Government to take the power to mandate how to divide the proceeds of football. Currently, there is a voluntary distribution of the revenues through the football pyramid, and that is essential to the health of the game. We are seeing the impact of the proposals: the EFL is refusing to negotiate with the Premier League and has said that it is waiting for the backstop powers to come into force.

The Government have made the proposals even worse by including parachute payments in the backstop. That is a complete mistake, because clubs such as Norwich need the certainty of parachute payments to invest so that they can compete in the league. That would ensure we have a competitive league that generates income. The EFL will not engage with the 3UP national league campaign, because it is waiting for the backstop before making a view on whether to get one more promotion from the national league.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I have to say that it is very curious that we know that this letter exists�it has been confirmed in the other place that it exists�and yet the Government repeatedly refuse to publish it, despite the potential impact that political interference with the governance of sport could have. Why does the Minister not just ask UEFA for permission to publish the letter and give it to Members?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House who I know spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. His Government, like this one, did not publish private correspondence, but I can absolutely assure the House that I have met UEFA and it does not have any issues.

As the Member of Parliament for Barnsley South, I know how important a club is to the community. Barnsley FC is a huge part of my town, and the community trust does amazing work, but Barnsley football club narrowly avoided administration 20 years ago. Football clubs mean everything to local people, with family, friends and neighbours coming together to watch games, win or lose. In turn, football would be nothing without its fans.

Hon. Members have spoken so well today about what clubs mean to their communities. We have heard from so many: Reading, Aylesbury United, Oxford United, Brighton and Hove, Luton Town, Grimsby Town, Norwich City, Chesterfield, Coventry City, Port Vale FC, Derby County FC, Morecambe FC, Carlisle United FC, Basingstoke Town, Bolton Wanderers, Bracknell Town, Mansfield Town and Weston-super-Mare. That really shows the strength of debate up and down this country and across this House. Despite bigger revenues than ever coming into the game, too many loyal fans have had their attention forced away from the pitch and into the troubles of malicious ownership, mishandled finances and ultimately the worry that their cherished clubs might be lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

rose�

[James Wild]

rose�

--- Later in debate ---

[Yuan Yang]

I thank all hon. Members who have made speeches or interventions today. I also thank the Minister for her response and reassurance that she and this Government will continue to take seriously the real and pressing need for better football governance in this country. I am glad that she mentioned this Government�s amendments and additions to the Bill, particularly concerning fan consultation. I think we can all agree that we are here today in this Chamber because of the fans we represent.

Many hon. Members have brought up the social value of clubs and the community value that they bring to us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) pointed out, it is rare in any other walk of life to find a club that spans youth clubs and elderly people�s clubs and does work across the spectrum of ages and backgrounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) described how much of a presence her local club has in her town. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke about how his local club, Port Vale, received an award for its community value, and he described the value of the cohesion that a football club can bring as a focal point for the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has worked at length with her local club the Shrimps, described how clubs can bring people together. I recognise that Morecambe football club faces a severely urgent need for an independent regulator. Because of that urgency, I was actually quite disappointed to hear the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), describe the history of the Bill, but then sidestep that history and seem to oppose the current Bill. I also note that he did not respond to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about why he had changed his mind.

For many clubs across the country, we need regulation sooner rather than later, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out. Every day we wait means another day that the staff of Reading football club forgo their wages and fans forgo certainty. My neighbour the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who described this as a cross-party issue. I urge Opposition Members to maintain the cross-party consensus that was built over the last Parliament, when we all identified the need for independent football regulation.

I recognise the concerns voiced by the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Luke Evans) about the effects of a new regulator. I see where they are coming from, but I would argue that regulation can only increase international business confidence in the integrity of our football pyramid. There have been legal challenges already in the past few decades about the collective selling in the premier league, and I believe that better governance would reassure all those looking on that the public benefit argument has been sufficiently thought through.

More regulation would mean more stability across the pyramid and would prevent the situation we are in today, under which so many Members in this room have seen their local clubs go into administration, and which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) experienced when he was the chair of Southampton and it went into administration. For those clubs that have experienced administration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described, the impact on fans and on staff is immense. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) described how fans can rescue a club from administration, but so few manage to go down that route and emerge successfully.

My 90 minutes is drawing to a close, and there is no extra time for us in this match.

[James Wild]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions are not taken in wind-ups.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I would be delighted to support my hon. Friend as she continues to fight the good fight for football fans in her constituency. Like her, I was appalled by the Leader of the Opposition’s comments. The independent football regulator began life under the last Government; it was in the Conservative manifesto, it was in our manifesto, and we were elected to deliver it on behalf of millions of football fans. I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) will disassociate himself from the Leader of the Opposition’s appalling comments.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a serious matter that the Sport Minister has had to apologise to people running clubs in the most popular league in the world, after writing an article saying that critics of the football regulator were “promoting untruths”. Will the Secretary of State now engage actively and constructively with the people running football, and explain why the Government have repeatedly rejected proposals in the other place to impose a growth duty on the regulator?

[Lisa Nandy]

Both the Sport Minister and I meet every premier league club and Premier League executives on a regular basis, and we have a very constructive relationship with them, including on pursuing the Government’s No. 1 mission, which is to grow our economy after 14 years of stagnant economic growth and decline. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are always happy to clarify who our comments are intended towards, as we were in this instance, but if he seriously thinks that it is acceptable for Conservative Front Benchers to extinguish the hope of millions of football fans who were made promises by his party that it never delivered on, he might want to explain that to football fans in his own constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend challenges me a bit. The Rhondda has the best mining museum in the UK, but I am prepared to concede that in England he might be right. But there is an important point: our mining heritage is part of understanding the country that we have been, and the country that we can be in future. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. Arts Council England has a specific way of giving a national name to museums, and that is one thing that he might want to apply to it for.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Tourism and hospitality contributes more than £500 million and a fifth of all jobs in North West Norfolk. Why are the Government hitting those businesses with higher business rates and a jobs tax?

[Chris Bryant]

It would be good, would it not, to have an NHS that works in this country. It would be good to have an economy that works, trains that run on time, and a country that functions so that when tourists come here they have a good experience, rather than sitting on a platform waiting for a train that never turns up on time. I am determined to ensure that we get to 50 million visitors to the United Kingdom. Last year, we had just 38 million visitors. If we are to secure that increase we must have a country that welcomes tourists to every part of the country, not just London and the south-east.