Culture, Media and Sport
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir John Whittingdale
The Secretary of State will be aware that, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, last year the BBC lost more than £1 billion as a result of evasion and households declaring that they no longer need a licence. That figure is going to grow over the course of the next charter, so will she look at finding other ways in which we can close the funding gap?
Lisa Nandy
Yes. As the right hon. Gentleman would imagine, we are looking at a whole range of options around BBC funding to ensure that it is sustainably funded for many years to come. In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Ofcom recently produced a report in which it showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
[Official Report, 27 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 503.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy):
Lisa Nandy
… In particular, we are very keen to ensure that people feel a sense of ownership and belonging over the BBC, which is why the point about the nations and regions is so important. Oliver & Ohlbaum Associates recently produced a report, drawing on Ofcom data, which showed that of the top Scottish producers who fulfil the Scottish quota, for example, only one third are actually based in Scotland among the public sector broadcasters.
Telegraph Media Group: Anticipated Acquisition
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I wish to update the House on the sale of the Telegraph Media Group, following the recent withdrawal of the RedBird Capital Partners-led bid to acquire the title, and the news announced on Saturday 22 November that RedBird IMI has signed an agreement with Daily Mail and General Trust, entering into a period of exclusivity to finalise the terms of the transaction.
The Telegraph has been in limbo for a long time. Until now, I have sought to afford the parties selling the call option to own The Telegraph sufficient time to independently manage the process. The 19 months have passed since RedBird IMI announced its intention to sell. A sale has still not happened and the situation has become unsustainable. My particular concerns are that the protracted uncertainty has been detrimental to the stability of The Telegraph and its staff and to the investment appeal of the sector as a whole.
Under the terms of the order made in January 2024, transfer of the ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is only permitted with the prior written consent of the Secretary of State. RedBird IMI and DMGT have said they will use their exclusivity period to prepare the necessary request for securing that consent, which they say they expect to happen quickly. Given how much time has already elapsed in this case and the need for the period of uncertainty to be ended, I expect the submission of that request to take no longer than three weeks. My intention is to build a constructive path toward a timely sale, without further delay, that is in the public interest. In this context I will review any new acquisition of the Telegraph, guided by the following principles in the exercise of my powers:
Upholding the public interest: the media public interest considerations set out in the Enterprise Act 2002 must be properly investigated and appropriately upheld under any new ownership of the Telegraph Media Group.
Exclusion of foreign state funding: any future owner of the Telegraph Media Group, and their controlling entities, must be completely free from any prohibited foreign state influence.
Protecting The Telegraph: until the future ownership of the Telegraph Media Group is resolved and any regulatory scrutiny is completed, the editorial independence of The Telegraph business must be suitably protected.
I reserve my right to intervene under my powers and duties as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002.
I will continue to monitor developments very closely and will update Parliament on this matter as appropriate at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS1090]
UK Commission on Covid Commemoration Report: Government Response
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Five years ago the world as we knew it stopped. Covid-19 affected everyone in so many different ways, and many continue to feel those impacts.
Today, the Government have published its official response to the report of the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration which sets out a programme of commemorative activity to mark this unique and challenging period in our country’s history. This response has now been presented to both Houses of Parliament.
I want to place on record my thanks to the right hon. the Baroness Morgan of Cotes and all the commissioners for the care and consideration the commission gave to the report and for its ongoing advice as we have carefully reflected on the recommendations. This Government are grateful to the devolved Governments, with whom we have worked closely to ensure that the response to the commission’s reflects the efforts of individuals and groups across the United Kingdom.
The impact of covid-19 on all of our lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during this time. As Secretary of State, I have had the privilege of meeting with a number of covid-19 bereaved family groups that have worked closely with us in developing this programme. I have heard at first hand the traumatic impact of not being able to be with their loved one, to hold their hand, to say goodbye.
I pay tribute to the covid-19 bereaved families groups for their tireless voluntary efforts to provide networks of support to help others feel less alone or isolated in their grief, while carrying their own. I am also grateful for their input to the commission and their ongoing work with my Department in developing this programme. As we remember and honour their loss, we are committed to continuing to work together as this programme is delivered.
The pandemic saw our communities come together in extraordinary ways to help and support each other in the most difficult of times. We saw acts of courage and dedication from the key workers who kept vital services running, and the millions who volunteered to support others in their time of need. We thank all those who worked so hard to keep our country going and these acts of service will be remembered as part of this commemorative programme.
In March, we marked the fifth anniversary of the pandemic with the covid-19 day of reflection, with events held across the country allowing people to remember in a way that was meaningful to them. In contrast to the experiences of isolation and separation we felt during the pandemic, the day of reflection was a chance for us to come together to remember the lives lost, the sacrifices made, and the impacts that many continue to feel. We will come together again on Sunday 8 March 2026 for this important day.
We will create dedicated webpages on gov.uk to provide information on covid-19 commemoration. This will include a repository of oral histories to ensure that the experiences of the pandemic are not forgotten, as well as details on the many covid-19 memorials that have been created across the country. Working in partnership with NHS Charities Together and Forestry England we will create new covid-19 commemorative spaces that reflect the importance of nature and the outdoors throughout the pandemic and provide spaces for contemplative reflection.
This Government are determined to learn the lessons from the covid-19 pandemic and build our national resilience. I have heard movingly from those who lost a loved one that they do not want others to experience their suffering. As the commission recommended, we will launch a new UK-wide fellowship scheme on natural hazards, delivered by UKRI. to support future national resilience as part of the commemorative programme to honour the loss and sacrifice.
In Parliament, we look across the River Thames to the national covid memorial wall. Nearly a quarter of a million hand-painted hearts span the wall as an outpouring of love created by the bereaved, for the bereaved. This memorial matters greatly to the whole country. I want to thank the friends of the wall for their tireless commitment and dedication to care for the wall. As we commemorate the pandemic, we are committed to working with the friends of the wall and the local partners to preserve the wall.
Through this programme of commemoration we will ensure that those we lost are honoured, that we remember the sacrifices and resilience of so many during this unprecedented time in our history, and that as a country we do not forget.
[HCWS1054]
Independent Football Regulator
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
In 2021, the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, set up the fan-led review of football, and selected Dame Tracey Crouch to chair it. This led to a clear recommendation for an independent football regulator, which was strongly endorsed by Members from all sides of the House. The previous Government promised that they would deliver this regulator, but they did not, leaving fans in the lurch as a result. This Government made it a priority and passed that legislation within our first year, because we are fully committed to protecting football clubs across the country.
To make that a reality, the Minister for Sport confirmed David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator on 6 October. David Kogan was the exceptional candidate, warmly endorsed across the world of football and by the cross-party Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
As the House will be aware, the Commissioner for Public Appointments conducted an investigation into the appointment itself, which was released last week. I am pleased that the report does not question the suitability of Mr Kogan as chair of the IFR. The report also makes it clear that I did not personally know about the donations to my leadership campaign at the time that I selected him as the preferred candidate. It also recognises that, as soon as I became aware of the donations, I chose to declare them and chose to recuse myself from the remainder of the process.
However, as I have made clear, I acknowledge the findings of the report. The Commissioner was clear that the breach around donations to my campaign was unknowing, but I recognise that the highest standards were not met. As the Secretary of State for the Department that ran this appointment, I take full responsibility for that, and it is for that reason that I wrote to the Prime Minister and apologised for the error. I will, of course, ensure that lessons are learned from this process with my Department.
Our focus now is to make sure that no fan ever has to go through what my constituents and I lived through in Wigan. Implementing this regime to help protect clubs in financial peril, and putting the interests of fans up and down the country first, is a priority for this Government and, led by David Kogan, the Independent Football Regulator will get on with the job.
We are here today to debate process, but this is also about real-world impact. Fans up and down the country need us to get on with delivering on our promise and making a difference. This is for Derby County and Scunthorpe United, for Morecambe and Sheffield Wednesday, for Wigan, Reading, Macclesfield Town and Bury. We are putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Mr French
Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.
Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process. The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition.
The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor? Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him?
Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?
Lisa Nandy
I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions in turn. First, this process was subject to a thorough investigation by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, and when he questions the findings of that report, he should reflect on whether that is the proper role of this House. The report was absolutely crystal clear on that point. It was also clear—in contrast to what the hon. Gentleman just asserted—that I personally fell short of what was expected on one occasion. There were two other technical breaches from the Department, but as the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I take full responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the Prime Minister. As he will know, if he has read the report, I personally took the decision to ask Mr Kogan to put that information in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee at his hearing to ensure that it had full information as soon as I had it, within hours of finding out about the donation. Mr Kogan was open and transparent about the fact that he had donated to both my campaign and the Prime Minister’s campaign, but I am the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; my Department ran this process, and it is for me to take full responsibility for it.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asserts that Mr Kogan was not part of the process. I find that astonishing, and I presume that at some point he will come back to correct the record. When he speaks to his colleagues, he will know that one of them—the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench—oversaw the process before the general election, at a time when they were proudly extolling the virtues of having a football regulator and governance Act, which they later opposed.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) will know that Mr Kogan was approached for this job under the last Conservative Government and put on the list, which I inherited from the last Government. I want to be crystal clear on this point. Mr Kogan was not added to the list after the general election; he was on the list from the last Conservative Government.
The hon. Gentleman talks about cronies. [Interruption.] The Opposition can chunter all they like, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about a man who has extensive media experience and represented the Premier League, the English Football League, the National Football League and others throughout his long and distinguished career. He was put on the list by the last Government in the full knowledge that he was a Labour donor. If he is such a crony and unfit to hold this sort of office, why on earth did the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), appoint him to the board of Channel 4? It just does not stack up. Mr Kogan was so good that the last Government approached him themselves.
Finally, I am happy to answer extensive questions about this issue. That is why I have chosen to come to the House and answer these questions, despite the fact that the Minister for Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), made the final decision. The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup is a Charlton Athletic fan, and I am a bit surprised that, given its experience of bad owners, he is setting himself and his party against football fans in his constituency and the length and breadth of the country by trying to attack a man whose credentials are unquestionable.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that in the terrible time that Sheffield Wednesday fans have been through in the last few months, not one of them has ever asked me what is happening with this report and review? They say to me, “How quickly can we get a regulator in place who will deal with owners like Chansiri who are ruining our club?” Does the Secretary of State agree that in the appointment of David Kogan, we have someone who is knowledgeable, tough, determined and independent of bad football owners and who will act on behalf of football fans? Is not the fundamental difference here between those of us on the Government Benches who support independent regulation, and those on the Opposition Benches who have given up on it and will simply kowtow to bad owners of football clubs?
Lisa Nandy
As always, my hon. Friend has taken this debate back to focusing on the people who matter most: the fans. They have been through hell over recent years as the last Government committed to act, then dragged their feet, and then refused to fulfil that promise to those fans. It was shameful to see Conservative Members go through the Lobby to vote against their own Bill, but I put on record my thanks to Dame Tracey Crouch for all the work she did and continues to do to uphold that promise. I also sincerely thank my hon. Friend; he and I have had numerous conversations over the course of the saga that has developed at Sheffield Wednesday, and I know how active he has been. That is the approach that this Government will always take. We will not stand by and let football fans pay the price when bad owners take over their clubs; we are putting those fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Lib Dems have welcomed the introduction of the new Independent Football Regulator. Our football clubs are huge, historic institutions that unite generations, bring local economies to life and inspire millions, both at home and abroad. As such, the Secretary of State carries a significant responsibility to earn the confidence of our world-leading football clubs and guide them through the introduction of these vital regulatory reforms.
The news that the Secretary of State broke the governance code by failing to declare in a timely manner donations received from the newly appointed head of the regulator, David Kogan, has undermined trust at a crucial moment. This regulator is about securing the future of our national game, ensuring that clubs remain sustainable, rooted in their communities and capable of thriving for generations to come. She cannot shy away from the potential conflict of interest involved in the breaches of the code that have emerged in recent days. This oversight requires genuine accountability from the Government in order to restore confidence in the new regulator. Will the Secretary of State therefore commit to order an independent investigation into the appointment of David Kogan and, if necessary, rerun the selection process for the IFR chair?
Lisa Nandy
All the way through this process, I have complied fully with the independent commissioner, because I believe that that is important. That stands in contrast to the last Government, multiple members of which broke not just the public appointments code but the ministerial code. The Conservatives still have a member of their Front-Bench team who broke the ministerial code—she now sits on their Front Bench as the shadow Foreign Secretary. Unlike them, we comply with these processes and accept the consequences. However, there has been an independent investigation—it has been going on for six months. I do not know how the hon. Lady has missed it; that is what we are discussing today.
She has also said to me that we need to earn the trust of the footballing world. Throughout the passage of the Football Governance Act 2025, as Conservative Members well know from when they were supporting it, numerous people were concerned about the appointment of anybody to take on the role of chair. One of those was Karren Brady, a very distinguished Member of the House of Lords, with extensive experience in football. Recently, she said that David Kogan has
“dealt with the EFL, Uefa, the women’s game and international bodies. That matters, because football isn’t just about the elite—it’s a pyramid, and if the top crumbles, the base cracks with it…And, more importantly, he’s worked in governance roles that demand accountability.”
If Members want any further evidence of the confidence that the appointment of David Kogan commands across the footballing world, it is that the staunchest critics of the Government’s approach to implementing a football regulator in the first place have come out strongly in support of the man who is already cracking on with putting football fans back at the heart of the game.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
When Tracey Crouch was appointed to lead the review of football governance, there was no opposition from Labour Members or the fans to the idea that a Conservative was going to lead that review; there was co-operation right across this House. When it was expedient for them, the Conservatives supported the fan-led review, but when the Bill went before Parliament and push came to shove, they opposed it. They are using it as a political football, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the football fans do not give a damn about this Westminster bubble argument? What they want is a regulator that is going to be on their side.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the years of work that he put into ensuring that we reached this point. I thank him personally as well, because when my club, Wigan Athletic, was in trouble, not once but twice, he and other members of the Select Committee could not have been more supportive in making sure that we got the right outcome and saved our club.
I also thank the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because even though he has latterly decided that this is a terrible appointment and that the Football Governance Act is a terrible thing, a couple of years ago he said this to the then Sports Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew):
“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans at local clubs such as Charlton Athletic, I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]
I am not sure whether the then Minister could give an answer at that time, but I am happy to say that we certainly will.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take
“concrete steps to reassure the football community”
of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.
The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential for the public to be able to have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the many debacles that we saw under the last Government. That is why I personally requested that Mr Kogan make that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself. The hon. Lady is also right to say that the Committee made a recommendation to Mr Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of Government. Although that was not a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard it loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was so quick to recuse myself from the process and take no further decisions in it.
The hon. Lady has indeed raised with me, and with the permanent secretary, the occasions on which the Department has fallen short. We take that very seriously, and we have committed to come back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we are taking. This is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we get it right, but I might add that the DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments—I think that we make nearly 50% of all such appointments across Government—and that is even more reason for us to ensure that the proper processes are in place. We are looking at that at the moment, and will come back to the hon. Lady very quickly.
May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady’s constituents? I remember that when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, Portsmouth fans jumped on to a Zoom call with us at very short notice, and could not have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us to pull through a difficult time. I remember that time as if it were yesterday. I remember how much pain and anxiety we were going through. The footballing world was there for us, and my commitment to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, is that this Government will be there for them too.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
We now have an excellent, highly qualified individual who has been appointed to chair the football regulator, and we have an excellent Secretary of State who made a mistake for which she has apologised. Even the commissioner said that the breach of the code
“was not a knowing breach.”
What football fans want is not this debate in Parliament today; what they want is for the Secretary of State to get on with the job, to protect clubs and to protect supporters. Can I encourage her to ignore the Opposition, who are playing politics with our national game, and just get on with the job?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, and I am pleased that he has joined the Select Committee. He has extensive knowledge of football and has been a consistent champion of football fans, and I very much support what he has said. This Government are absolutely determined to appoint the right people to the right positions, so that when fans go through the difficulties caused by poor owners, as they did at Charlton, they do not feel that they have nowhere to turn.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is not my style to attack the integrity of any Member of Parliament, so may I just ask a general question about the whole process of securing public confidence? Can we now consider tightening the ministerial code, and indeed the whole process, so that at the beginning of the process civil servants check on whether a Minister has received any donations, and if that is the case, the Minister recuses himself or herself at the very start?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entirely right to say that we need the tightest possible processes. That is why the Prime Minister took steps, when he was first elected as Prime Minister, to strengthen the ministerial code and also to strengthen the oversight powers of the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Laurie Magnus, in relation to the code. However, as the report makes clear, in this particular case I did ask for information about all donations to my leadership campaign. I was given the information but it turned out to be incomplete, and as soon as I was notified that that was the case, I took the decision to declare it, to ensure that the Select Committee was aware of it, and to recuse myself from the process.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than obstructing and delaying the work of the Independent Football Regulator, the Opposition need to do right by the fans and let David Kogan get on with the job? May I also request—slightly selfishly, as a Carlisle United fan—that one of the first things he does is press the English Football League to lift the limit on the number of places for promotion from the national league?
Lisa Nandy
I know that my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her constituents, and that this is something they care about. Both the Minister for Sport and I have heard the strength of feeling from the national league. This matter is not within the scope of the Independent Football Regulator—we deliberately kept its remit tight so it could focus on the many issues that have been raised, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—but I know that what has been said has been heard by the EFL, and the Government will continue to follow this closely.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I like and respect the right hon. Lady and I do not doubt her sincerity, but I do wonder whether she would have been quite so forgiving had I chosen to appoint a Tory donor to lead this regulatory body. Moreover, although I supported the establishment of the regulator and, indeed, initiated it at the time of the risk of a European Super League, I fear that since then the regulator has become excessively bureaucratic. It risks deterring international investment and the broader investment in the game that has been so beneficial for it. Does the right hon. Lady think that it might be time to look again at this regulator, and to put more emphasis on self-governance in football? I think that in recent years, it has shown itself to be capable of stepping up to the challenge.
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone that he has taken, but I must say to him that if he does not think that David Kogan was fit to be considered because he was a Labour donor, his party should not have put him on the list while knowing full well that he was a Labour donor, or, indeed, appointed him to the board of Channel 4. I appreciate that it is inconvenient for the Opposition, but I am afraid that that is the fact of the matter.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it is time to reconsider the Independent Football Regulator. Football fans were promised in 2021 that the last Government would act to deal with the many problems that we had seen in football clubs throughout the country, but they had to wait for a Labour Government to make good on that promise. In October this year, the Minister for Sport was able to confirm that Mr Kogan had been appointed and that we would start that work immediately. He has had a few weeks in which to get on with the job, and he has already achieved more in that time than the last Conservative Government achieved in 14 years.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Football Governance Act is an excellent Act which was driven through this place by the Tory Government, but at the very last minute, on Third Reading, they decided to oppose it. That was horrendous behaviour. It is worth wondering why that happened. On the appointment of Mr Kogan, it has been said in many places that he was on a list, had been approached by the Conservative Government about taking up the position, and was then offered it by the Labour Government. What evidence do the Labour Government have to prove that was the case?
Lisa Nandy
Well, I can confirm that Mr Kogan was on the list that was held by the Department; there are obviously records of that. I was also presented with that list when I took up this post in the summer of 2024. Not only was Mr Kogan on that list, having been approached by a Conservative Government about the job, but he was appointed to the board of Channel 4 by the last Conservative Government, so the Conservatives are obviously well aware of his credentials for the job.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) mentioned Dame Tracey Crouch, I take this opportunity to thank her for the work that she has done. I was reflecting recently on how far the Opposition have fallen from the days when they had Members of Parliament like Dame Tracey Crouch, who could command the respect of the whole House.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
During the Select Committee pre-appointment hearing with David Kogan, I raised the issue of whether his appointment would be construed as being politically biased. Does the Secretary of State accept that appointing a known Labour donor to lead an independent regulator has created exactly the perception of political bias that I warned about during that hearing?
Lisa Nandy
As I have made clear, David Kogan was approached under the last Government and is eminently qualified for the job. Of course, as soon as I knew about the donations, I chose to declare them and recuse myself, and I then played no further part in the process, but I have a responsibility to football fans the length and breadth of this country to appoint the right person to this job, and there is no question but that David Kogan was the outstanding candidate—as he is already proving, having wasted no time in getting on with the job.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister spoke of risks to football. We need to be clear that the only risk to brilliant, grassroots, local community football clubs, such as Altrincham FC, is the Conservative party’s constant attempts to oppose and obstruct an Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State has taken on board the findings of the investigation and has taken responsibility. Does she agree that it is unedifying to watch the Opposition Front Benchers use this as another opportunity to obstruct an Independent Football Regulator, and stand against the best interests of the game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for being such a fantastic champion for his constituents; it was a pleasure to meet some of them when I came to his constituency not that long ago. I agree with him that the Conservatives appear to have no respect for football fans, for independent processes, or even for their own manifesto, which made it crystal clear that they supported the Football Governance Act 2025.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the Prime Minister, or anyone acting on his authority, declared his conflict of interest before Mr Kogan was asked to reinstate his withdrawn application? If a conflict of interest was declared, who declared it, and when?
Lisa Nandy
I think I have answered that question. I have been absolutely crystal clear: it is my Department that appoints the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. I was responsible for this process, and I take full responsibility for it. Just to be absolutely crystal clear, because hon. Members do not seem to be listening and seem to be all asking the same thing, I recused myself from the process, so it was the Minister for Sport who ultimately made the appointment decision, but I am the Secretary of State responsible for the process as a whole.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. While this Government are focused on finally delivering for fans and securing the future of our national game, the record of the party opposite tells a very different story. We have for years seen Conservative donors and insiders appointed to organisations across the board—to the NHS, to the UK Health Security Agency, and to the British Museum. We have also seen major donors becoming peers, and the Conservatives opening covid VIP lanes for their pals. It is the same old question—the one that Margaret Thatcher famously asked—“Is he one of ours?” Football fans do not care who is one of “theirs”; they care about saving their clubs and having a regulator who will do that. Does the Secretary of State agree that David Kogan, as chair of the Independent Football Regulator—chosen for his experience and merit, not for party loyalty—is finally putting fans first and protecting our beautiful game?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and for all the work she has done to support football fans for many years, even before being elected to this place. I completely accept that appointments will be made, under any Government, involving people who have made political donations—by definition, those people want to be involved in public life—and I have never criticised the Conservatives for making appointments on that basis. When I have criticised them, it has been when there was a strong dispute about whether the candidate had any qualifications for the job. There is no such dispute in the case of David Kogan.
When I have particularly criticised the Conservatives, it has been for not being prepared to comply with and respect independent processes. That is the difference between us and them. The independent Commissioner for Public Appointments decided to open an inquiry on what happened during this process. I complied with it fully throughout, and I have accepted the consequences.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I and like-minded football fans welcome the much-needed creation of an independent regulator. Indeed, I am not even questioning the merit of the individual appointed as its chair. The issue is this: the Secretary of State, by her own admission, forgot that she was given money by the new chair before he was appointed. That comes alongside the £33,410 that he has given to the Labour party over the past five years. Despite what the Secretary of State has just said, she has previously called out the Tories for double standards, said that Boris Johnson trashed the UK’s global reputation, and has, over many years, called for the Tories to “come clean”. Should she not consider her own reputation, rather than joining those sleazy ranks?
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.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First of all, I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. She is a right honourable Lady; I know that, and I hope that everybody in this Chamber does, as well. I very much welcome the Independent Football Regulator, but my constituents have asked me to ask a question, so I will; that is my job. Yesterday it was the BBC, and today it is the football regulator appointment. The general public are sceptical of appointments that, it seems to them, may breach the code on public appointments. Public confidence is truly at an all-time low, so how can the Secretary of State ensure that positions are fit for purpose, and that political affiliation or support will never be a material consideration in appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The Prime Minister has made it clear, and the Cabinet strongly believes, that although mistakes will always be made, we have to comply fully and openly with independent processes when those mistakes are made. We have to respect those processes, and we have to accept the consequences. The hon. Gentleman will note that in the report that was written and published by the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, not a single recommendation was made to me. There were recommendations for the Department, but there was not a recommendation for me. Nevertheless, I have chosen to apologise to the Prime Minister, because I believe that the right thing to do is to take responsibility for the things that we are responsible for.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the BBC. I imagine that he is alluding to an issue that was raised yesterday by many Members of this House: the political appointments that were made to the board, and the appointment of one board member in particular, which has been highlighted by many Members as being of concern. He will know that those appointments were made under the last Conservative Government. The last Conservative Government also chose to extend the term of the board member in question, just a few weeks before they called the general election, so that board member has been in post for several years. However, there is an opportunity to look at the issue in the upcoming charter review, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for explaining, and I am sure that people are glad to hear about the involvement of a sponsoring Department and a sponsoring Minister in a public appointment. In answering my question, she need not revisit the points made about her role—we all understand them, and she has explained them clearly. She will know that when a Secretary of State has made a provisional appointment, it is not unusual for it to go to No. 10 for further review. Putting aside her role, can she confirm whether anybody in No. 10 was involved in any way, shape or form in this appointment?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to clarify that this was not a prime ministerial appointment; it was an appointment made by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As the hon. Gentleman knows, as soon as I discovered the donation and that the information given at the start of the process was incomplete, I chose to declare that. I recused myself from the process, and the final decision was made not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister for Sport.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Along with many others, I fully supported the Football Governance Act and the introduction of the Independent Football Regulator. I accept the Secretary of State’s comment that she sincerely was not aware of the donation, but does she understand the public’s perception that an “independent” appointee was chosen because of their donations to the party in government? What steps will she and the Government take to review the process and make improvement, so that it commands the public’s trust and is completely unimpeachable? I understand her comment about donors wanting to participate in public life, but the Government should consider putting down a really clear marker about the kind of roles donors can and cannot perform in support of the Government.
Lisa Nandy
Oversight of the whole process and the way that public appointments are made is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestions and comments about the need to uphold the highest standards. In relation to this appointment, we did not meet the highest standards. It was a complicated process, and the post required a specialist skillset, and the appointment took place under two different Governments. That is not to make excuses; it is just to explain that this process was highly unusual. We have learned lessons from it, and we are implementing the commissioner’s recommendations in full.
In the end, the test of whether the public can have confidence in this appointment is whether Mr Kogan and the Independent Football Regulator are able to deliver on the promise that we will deal with bad owners and put fans back at the heart of the game. I am confident that we have made the right appointment, as evidenced by the fact that since he was appointed on 6 October, he has wasted no time at all in getting on with the job.
Points of Order
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Does the Secretary of State wish to respond?
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify that point for the hon. Gentleman. The request that I made to officials in my Department was relayed to Mr Kogan. It was, of course, his choice whether to take that advice, but he did. I have to be clear with the hon. Gentleman: from the moment I discovered that donations had been made to my campaign, I did not have any discussions with Mr Kogan about this or any other matter, and I recused myself from the process. I took that seriously. It was for the Minister for Sport to make the final decision, which she did, but from that point, I did not have direct conversations with Mr Kogan until the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments had been able to do his work. I hope that clarifies the matter.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition recently visited my constituency for her tool theft campaign, but I do not think that she has been informed that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) has already secured changes through the Sentencing Bill. The right hon. Lady did not notify me of her visit, and given that she is a long-standing Member of this House, I seek your advice on how she can be reminded of the courtesies to be afforded to Members.
Restoration of War Memorials
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made on 10 November 2025 in the other place by my noble Friend, the Minister for Museums, Heritage and Gambling, Baroness Twycross:
As we mark 80 years since the end of the second world war, the Government are providing £2 million funding to support the conservation and repair of war memorials across the UK.
The nation’s war memorials stand as enduring symbols of the sacrifice made by servicemen and women in conflicts past and present. In communities across the country, they are central to acts of remembrance and connect us to those who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we enjoy today.
The War Memorials Trust has identified that there is a backlog in the conservation of our war memorials. Addressing this will enhance local neighbourhoods and give communities a focal point for commemorations. It will support pride in place and improve the local environment for everyone.
This new funding will be made via an investment in the National Heritage Memorial Fund endowment. The memorial fund has been safeguarding the UK’s most important heritage for 45 years, and exists to form a UK-wide memorial in honour of those who have given their lives to the country.
NHMF will work with the War Memorials Trust, Historic England and other partners across the UK to protect and repair their local war memorials through grants, expert advice and guidance, ensuring these historic monuments can continue to serve as places for remembrance and education.
We expect to announce further details of the fund in due course.
[HCWS1029]
Points of Order
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will be aware that she had two minutes during the course of the statement to raise her concern. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State wishes to respond.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to make it clear that, as I have consistently said to the House, a very high legal threshold must be met in order for board members to be removed—that is set out in the terms of the charter—so I am unable to take the action that a number of Members have requested.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) published juvenile and shameful AI-edited videos of proceedings in this Chamber. I have written to Mr Speaker about this matter and whether it is a breach of the terms and conditions of parliamentlive.tv, which explicitly prohibit the altering of video or audio recordings in any way. I trust that that will be fully investigated.
More broadly, although that video was obviously edited, I am deeply concerned about the use of generative AI, which is fast evolving. The House must protect itself and our wider democratic system by drawing a firm line in the sand. Attempts to edit the words that Members speak in the Chamber and lessen their gravitas, and to make Members seem less responsible, are not acceptable, are disrespectful to colleagues, and are moreover an affront to democracy. What sanctions can be imposed on Members of this House to deter and prevent such behaviour, and if those sanctions are not adequate, what more can be done to ensure that our democracy is better protected from that use of AI technology?
BBC Leadership
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the BBC.
As the House will be aware, this weekend, the director general and the chief executive officer of BBC News tendered their resignations, following concerns about accuracy and impartiality at the BBC. This has sparked intense debate across the media and our nation. Today, I want to set out for the House what action is being taken to address the allegations that have been made, and the actions that the Government are taking to support the BBC in addressing this, and I want to address the future of an institution that has been at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century.
The House will know that yesterday, the chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, wrote to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He accepted that there had been editorial failings, and he committed to a number of steps in response. Dr Shah believes that our national broadcaster, which remains one of the most trusted sources of news in our country, has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards. I agree. Over the past week, I have been in regular contact with him and his team to ensure that where these standards have not been met, firm, swift and transparent action follows. I welcome the steps that have already been set out, and I will keep the House updated as the BBC leadership grips these issues.
The concerns that have been raised are serious in and of themselves, but some in the House have gone even further, suggesting that the BBC is institutionally biased. It should not be lost on us that the BBC has faced criticism from all sides for its coverage of highly contentious and contested issues. It has been accused of giving too much airtime to particular parties, and of giving them too little. Those in the House, from left and right, who are attacking the BBC for not expressing views with which they agree should consider just what is at stake. There is a fundamental difference between raising serious concerns about editorial failings, and Members of this House launching a sustained attack on the institution itself.
The BBC is not just a broadcaster; it is a national institution that belongs to us all. Every day, it tells the story of who we are—the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK. It projects British values, creativity and integrity to the world. It underpins our creative industries, has a footprint in our nations and regions that is unmatched, and is by far the most widely used and trusted source of news in the United Kingdom. At a time when the line between fact and opinion, and between news and polemic, is being dangerously blurred, the BBC stands apart. It is a light on the hill for people here and across the world. Trusted news and high-quality programming are essential to our democratic and cultural life, and all of us in the House should value them, uphold them and fiercely defend them.
The BBC is facing challenges, including some of its own making, but it is doing so in the context of a revolution in the media landscape that has challenged all broadcasters, and polarised and fragmented our national debate. It is time to grip this with a clarity of vision and purpose that will secure the BBC’s future. Throughout its history, the BBC has always adapted and evolved. This is an institution that began in the era of radio, when it was deemed an existential threat to the newspaper industry. It evolved into the age of mass audiences ushered in by the invention of television, and navigated the complexities of reporting during the second world war.
We will imminently begin the charter review, which will set the terms of the BBC for the next decade, and through it, we will collectively write the next chapter of the BBC’s story. Together, we will ensure that it is sustainably funded, commands the public’s trust, and continues to drive growth, good jobs, skills and creativity across every region and nation of the UK. In an era in which trust is fraying and truth is contested across our nation, the charter will ensure that the BBC remains fiercely independent and is genuinely accountable to the public it serves. We will publish a Green Paper and launch a public consultation shortly, and I will set out more detail on that for the House in the coming weeks.
I would like to thank the outgoing director general for his service and his commitment to public service broadcasting over many years. I thank the CEO of BBC News for leading the BBC’s news operation through stormy times. I do not underestimate the challenge of taking on those roles, and the personal toll that that can take on the individuals who hold them. As we write the next chapter of an institution that has stood at the centre of British public life for a century, our overarching goal is simple: to ensure that the BBC can renew its mission for the modern age and continue to inform, educate and entertain, not just for the coming decade but well into the next century. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Lady for giving advance notice of her statement. The BBC is in a sorry mess—sadly, one of its own making—that has resulted in the resignation of the director general and its CEO of news. Those recent leadership changes are a response to the growing number of examples of bias in the BBC, one of which has resulted in a potential $1 billion lawsuit. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said that the BBC needs to change and needs saving from itself. Otherwise, we may all pay the price, through reputational damage, and from our pockets, as licence fee payers. We all want the BBC to succeed and be the best possible version of itself, but that requires institutional change, and far more than a few moves at the top.
I will first acknowledge some of the many things that the BBC does well, and the ways in which it delivers on its commitment to inform, educate and entertain. Those things range from “Strictly” and “Traitors” to its world-class natural history programming, sport and local radio, and its coverage of major national events, including the recent remembrance services. Those are things that we can all be proud of, and that contribute positively to the BBC’s brand, and its reputation at home and abroad. But the BBC also has a charter obligation of impartiality, and too many examples have come to light of bias at the BBC, particularly in relation to its news and current affairs output. It has often strayed far from its editorial guidelines, including in its coverage of trans rights, its selective push notifications of news, in the Gaza documentary, in the output of the Arabic news service, and in its reliance on stats provided by Hamas. All those things speak to bias at the BBC. At a time when antisemitism is rising around the world, the BBC should surely think twice about distributing questionable data from a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. We expect better from our national broadcaster.
I am glad that the BBC chair has admitted an error of judgment relating to the “Panorama” programme on Donald Trump, which involved editing his speech to give the impression that he said something that he did not. The BBC now faces a hefty lawsuit, and we do not want to see the taxpayer, the licence fee payer, or the rest of the BBC suffer because of the poor judgment of the “Panorama” programme makers, who seem unable to distinguish opinion from impartial journalism, and who clearly all thought the same. That is precisely the problem. It is remarkable that in every area of its operations, the BBC seeks inclusivity and diversity, other than in thought, and in political thinking. Does the Secretary of State agree that that must change—that the BBC’s culture needs to change? Does she agree that the BBC must provide a full apology to the US President, and, hopefully, avoid legal action, and does she agree that the BBC would do well to apologise to the British public, too?
Does the Secretary of State also agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the BBC’s adherence to impartiality standards, particularly when it comes to news and current affairs, and that we need more than apologies and resignations at the top—that we need clear actions on complaints processing, governance, oversight and compliance, to ensure that the BBC sticks to its charter obligations on impartiality, and rigidly and consistently abides by its own editorial guidelines?
The Secretary of State mentioned the next steps and the BBC charter review, but we would appreciate more detail on timelines as soon as possible. What discussions is she having with the BBC leadership about the search for the new director general? Given that the BBC Arabic service is funded in part by the British taxpayer through a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office grant, what discussions is she having with her FCDO colleagues about its future funding and governance arrangements, and about the impact that the BBC’s editorial failings have had on Israel and our partners in the middle east? Action must be taken, and the serious issues discussed today must be addressed, because the BBC must once again become an institution of which all of us, not just some of us, can be proud.
Lisa Nandy
May I thank the hon. Gentleman? I know that the situation that has unfolded over the past week has been of serious concern to him. I say from the outset that I strongly agree with him that two resignations are not the answer to the challenges that the BBC has faced, not just over the last week, but in recent months. I have come to this House too many times to share progress updates after editorial failings. He mentioned examples relating to Gaza and Glastonbury, but there have been others as well. I am pleased that the chairman of the BBC, Dr Samir Shah, has accepted the instances where the institution has made mistakes. I am pleased that he has been open with the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), about that, and I am pleased that he is setting out the concrete actions that will follow.
I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman that clear actions are important; they must be swift, robust and transparent. I also strongly agree with him that there is a problem with consistency and the way that standards are applied, which leaves individual journalists and presenters in a very difficult position. I have made that point to the chairman, and previously to the director general.
I have had discussions with the chairman of the board about the search for a director general. The House should be aware that the Government do not appoint the director general. As set out in the charter, that is a matter solely for the board, but we stand ready to provide support, where it is requested and necessary, to make sure that we get the highest-calibre individual. I understand from the board that there is a desire to move quickly on that, but that the existing director general will remain in place to ensure a smooth transition, and I will update the House as I receive further information.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the BBC Arabic service and funding for the World Service. It is important to recognise that there have been serious concerns and failings on the part of the BBC Arabic service. Dr Shah, in response to that issue, set out in a letter to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee a number of steps that are being taken. I understand that they include structural changes, as well as staff changes, but I gently push back against the assertion that this issue should affect our support for the World Service. The World Service is a light on the hill for people in places of darkness, of which there are many in the world at the moment. This Government strongly support the World Service and will continue to do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Whatever the position regarding Donald Trump, who has said far worse than what was shown in the wrongly edited clip, the only ones rubbing their hands with glee during this debacle are those who do not want a free press—those politicians who have deep pockets lined by goodness knows who, and who cosplay as journalists on RT and GB News to spread division and hatred. I hope that all of us in this House agree with the principle of keeping our public broadcaster free from political interference. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time to review the influence of former Conservative spin doctor Robbie Gibb on the BBC’s board?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will be aware that the charter sets a strict legal threshold that must be met before dismissal of a board member, so I am unable to pursue the course of action that she suggests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats have always pushed the BBC to be better, delivering genuinely balanced reporting, rigorous investigation and the best journalism in the world. We believe in a strong, independent, publicly funded BBC that values factuality, scrutiny and accountability in our democracy. The BBC clearly is not perfect, and it is right that we hold it to the highest standards. The “Panorama” editing error was a serious mistake, and we welcome the BBC’s apology. The resignations of Tim Davie and Deborah Turness must be an opportunity for the BBC to turn over a new leaf, rebuild trust and return to its core mission to inform, educate and entertain.
However, it is obvious to everyone that this issue is being weaponised by those who want to undermine the BBC and who would profit from its demise. Without the BBC, we would be more vulnerable to the dangerous misinformation and conspiracy theories that populists such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and Donald Trump trade on, and we cannot let that happen. As the Government navigate Trump’s latest tantrum in threatening to sue the BBC for $1 billion, what is the Secretary of State doing to stand up for the BBC—Britain’s BBC—which is the most trusted source of information in the world?
Speaking of interference by bad actors, serious concerns remain over the conduct of Sir Robbie Gibb during his tenure on the BBC board. We need to have absolute confidence that the BBC can operate free from political influence, factional interests or personal agendas. If the Secretary of State truly believes in an independent BBC, will she now sack Robbie Gibb, end the political grip on the BBC board and listen to Liberal Democrat calls to guarantee that the appointment of the next director general is transparent, impartial and worthy of the trust that the British public place in the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady asks if we will stand up for the BBC, and she will have heard my words to the House today. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in the country, and it has stood at the centre of our democratic and cultural life for over a century. How will we stand up for the BBC? We will put it on a firm footing through the charter process that we are about to start. On her concerns about board members, she will have heard the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her leadership on this. I wholeheartedly welcome her words that political figures should not be presenters of the news. Surely that should apply also to the arbiters of news standards. Could these reforms therefore look at the four-person editorial standards committee, given that two of them have resigned, leaving as its most senior member someone who has owned a newspaper in his time, breaching the Independent Press Standards Organisation guidelines—the ex-Conservative director of communications, Robbie Gibb?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend mentions the editorial guidance and standards committee, which has been the source of much debate and scrutiny over recent days. I have discussed this directly with the chair of the BBC. I understand that changes to that committee are planned, and I very much welcome that decision.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I echo her words about the director general and the head of news. She will know that the airwaves over the last couple of days have been dominated by a number of debates about the BBC: the concern about bias, particularly on some of the most contentious issues; the ability of the board to govern effectively; and, most of all, editorial standards and accuracy.
That last point has led the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, to issue invitations today for the non-executive members of the BBC editorial guidance and standards committee Dr Samir Shah, Caroline Thomson and Robbie Gibb, and the former external independent advisers Michael Prescott and Caroline Daniel to appear before us in the weeks ahead. In the meantime, what support is the Secretary of State’s Department giving the BBC at every level to steady the ship?
On charter review, I heard the Secretary of State use the words “imminently” and “shortly”, but I have heard similar words since the beginning of the year, so could she be more specific on the timeline?
Lisa Nandy
First, I welcome the action that the hon. Lady’s Select Committee is taking, which she has announced to the House. To maintain confidence in the BBC, it is absolutely essential that the BBC is transparent about the actions it has taken and the actions it intends to take. It is very welcome that she is ensuring that the fullest explanation is given not just to this House, but to the public.
On the timing of the charter review, the hon. Lady will have heard what I said to her Committee when I appeared before it recently, which is that we will start the charter review process before the end of the year. I will of course return to this House as soon as the timing is finalised to give Members a chance to debate it.
The hon. Lady asked what action we, as a Government, are taking to support the board through what is clearly a tumultuous time. I have been working very closely with the chairman of the BBC in recent days—I have spoken to him daily—and with the director general. We have been clear as a Government that we stand ready to provide all the support the board needs to appoint the highest calibre person to the post of director general and to consider what changes it might want to make to senior leadership structures and roles as a result of its deliberations. The BBC is of course independent of Government and it is essential that it is given the space to be able to get on with that process, but we have been working very closely with the BBC chairman, at his request, in order to make sure that the BBC can continue to thrive.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Now, more than ever, the role of the BBC in our national story and our democracy and the trust we put in it are vital. Trust is not given; it is earned, and we cannot shy away when things go wrong. Does the Culture Secretary agree with me that the charter should focus on transparency, accountability and measurable commitments to impartiality as the surest way to ensure that trust in the BBC is retained?
Lisa Nandy
I do agree with my hon. Friend. As well as the very important issues around standards, I would add trust, accountability and independence from Government—any Government, including ours—because the BBC plays a critical role in holding up a mirror not just to society but to Governments of all political persuasions. I would add that the BBC has always been one of the strongest drivers of the creative industries across every nation and region. As part of the charter review process, we will be working to strengthen that to make sure that the BBC is able to tell the story of our whole nation, and not just some of it.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
I join the Culture Secretary in paying tribute to the director general of the BBC—I found him helpful on issues such as antisemitism—but the problem with the BBC goes much deeper than the current leadership. Does she agree, first of all, that it goes to the cultural disposition of the BBC? People who work for it have an overwhelmingly metropolitan outlook and obsess about issues such as Black Lives Matter and Palestine in a way that suburban and provincial England does not obsess? Moreover, my constituents are sick of waiting for the lecture from the BBC in output such as drama. That is the case from other broadcasters, but the difference with the BBC is that my constituents pay for it. There is a real problem with the BBC now, whereby many people feel that it represents half the United Kingdom and not the other half. Does she agree that, for those of us who want the BBC to succeed, that must be addressed as a matter of urgency?
Lisa Nandy
The challenges the right hon. Gentleman describes do not specifically relate just to the BBC. I have voiced concerns, as have many Conservative Culture Secretaries previously, about the overwhelming concentration of the media industry in one background and from one region. I believe, as many of my Conservative predecessors have done, that that needs to change. I would caution focusing particularly on the BBC, because that is a problem for the media industry as a whole and therefore for the public debate. The BBC over the years, through its work at Media City in Salford and at Digbeth Loc in Birmingham, is one of the organisations that is at the forefront of changing that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, though, that there has to be a level of internal challenge within any successful organisation. In the discussions I have been having with the chairman of the BBC and the director general in recent days, that has been the subject of many of the concerns that I have raised.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former journalist and former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I know more than most some of the failings of the BBC, but I also recognise some of its great strengths, not least in combating misinformation online. I know many of its journalists personally and many, many of them take ultra seriously their duties to provide fair, impartial and, yes, fearless news coverage. It is the fearlessness that often upsets this House, on either side. Yes, this was a serious error by the “Panorama” team and a correction should have been issued swiftly, but that does not mean that the BBC as an institution should be undermined. There are enemies on the left and the right who want to see the demise of the BBC, and they would rue that day should it ever happen.
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend first on the point he makes about the seriousness of some of the failings and the need to uphold the highest standards. I also agree about the challenges and attacks that the BBC faces from both left and right. The real division in the debate over the BBC is not between left and right; it is between those of us who think that the national broadcaster is there to represent their world view and those of us who believe that our national broadcaster is here to challenge all of us.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The internet is full of people who think they are in touch with a bigger truth and that it does not matter what happens to all sorts of littler truths along the way in getting that bigger truth across. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), the Chair of the Select Committee, Samir Shah spoke of the “sacred job” of the BBC to use evidence that can be trusted. That is more important than ever. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is events such as these that give ammunition to people who say, “Disregard the BBC—don’t look at the mainstream media” and consider all sources to be the same? The most worrying thing is not that a mistake happened, because mistakes happen in big organisations; the most worrying thing is that it took this long for it be corrected. Does the Secretary of State agree that in future, corrections must always be made swiftly and proactively?
Lisa Nandy
I have reflected concern about the time it takes to respond to the BBC leadership, not just in relation to this episode, but previously. It really does undermine trust and confidence in the BBC. When a process takes time, and if there is no proper explanation as to why it has taken some time, it leads people to believe that there is complacency at the top of the organisation. I think the chairman has heard that loud and clear and has taken it on board as part of the learning from this episode. I have shared some of my frustrations with the BBC leadership and the failings that have happened over the past 16 months with this House, as have others, because the BBC holds such an important place in our national life and must command the trust of the whole public.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I think we can all hear the Secretary of State’s frustration that we are in this position. She is absolutely right that there must be a period of introspection at the BBC about how this has come to pass, because it is true that trust in our national institutions is declining. However, I must take issue with her comment that the BBC is a national institution that belongs to us all. My constituents—and, I wager, those of Members across this House—are deeply concerned by the political attacks on the BBC, whether from home or abroad, and want to see it protected, because they think they own it. The honest truth, however, is that at the moment they do not own it. In the past, my right hon. Friend has been interested in these ideas; with the charter renewal coming up, might she meet a group of us to look at how ideas such as mutualisation and allowing the public to be part of running the organisation might be the future in giving back trust and confidence in the BBC and genuinely protecting it from political institutions?
Lisa Nandy
I stand absolutely by the assertion that the BBC belongs to us all. It is funded by the licence fee payer, but more than that it is one of the few shared spaces and places that we have in this country. I was reflecting on this on Remembrance Sunday as I stood at the Cenotaph, and did so before that at the VE Day commemorations earlier this year: there are very few broadcasters in this country that could provide those moments where the entire country stops and comes together through a shared experience. I would of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her suggestions.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The BBC has said that the editing of the “Panorama” programme gave the impression of a
“direct call for violent action”—
something it then described as an “error of judgement”, which seems an extraordinary understatement. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that although this was considered by the editorial guidelines and standards committee in May, nothing was done? Should not as a first step the editorial guidelines and standards committee be made far tougher and fully independent? Will the Secretary of State consider that and other measures as part of the charter review she is undertaking as a way of strengthening the impartiality requirement that was inserted in the previous charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the right hon. Member for his suggestion. I look forward to having more detailed conversations with him as we start the charter review process. As he is a former Culture Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to have those conversations. He raises the specific issue of the committee meeting that took place in May. My understanding is that there was a meeting in January, then a further meeting in May at the BBC’s own request, but there was then a failure to follow through. I do not want to speak for the BBC. It is not my role to answer questions on behalf of the BBC about how it took those decisions, but I note with interest that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee will be calling members of the editorial guidelines and standards committee to appear before it, and I am sure that that will be one of the things the Select Committee seeks to probe.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
I do not think any reasonable person can think that the programme put out by “Panorama” was a mistake. It was clearly manipulation with a purpose, and unfortunately it follows a long line—I will not list all the examples, as other hon. Members have done that, but they include Gaza, anti-women trans issues and Europe. To give an example from my constituency, a programme was put out a few years ago called “People Like Us”, where contributors—young women—had been paid to fight and other contributors had been sent on holiday in order to get them to say particular things. I do not think that the biggest threat to the BBC is some conspiracy. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that the biggest threat to the BBC is a failure to uphold objectivity and the standards we expect from the BBC.
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s view about the seriousness of the failings, which the BBC has accepted this week, and the need for clear, robust, firm and swift action in response. I would, though, remind the House that the BBC is responsible for thousands of hours of output across multiple channels, including some of the most popular and entertaining programmes in this country and some of the highest-quality children’s television in the world. It is also responsible for the BBC World Service, which is renowned and revered the world over. It plays an essential role in our global democracy and is responsible for regional news that is highly trusted. It reaches stories, people and communities that others cannot reach. I say that not to downplay in any sense the seriousness of the concerns that have been raised this week, but just to make clear that the BBC as an institution is essential to this country, and that when we hold it to the highest standards, it is because we need it to thrive.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
To interrogate honourably, the BBC needs to have a level of integrity, yet it has diminished itself in ignoring a report for six months that looked not just at one “Panorama” programme but at a litany of failures. The BBC piously shows religious observance to the principles of integrity and impartiality, but when challenged and criticised, it sacrifices all that on the altar of supreme arrogance. Hearing today that the high priest of partiality Jonathan Munro continues to defend the editorial decisions of the “Panorama” programme, does the Secretary of State believe that he too must go?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member will have heard the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It is not for me or any Government to decide who is employed by the BBC and who is not, but I agree, of course, that integrity and impartiality are vital.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Like some other colleagues in the House, I often start my morning with Dotty on BBC Radio Cambridgeshire and end my days with Amelia on “BBC Look East”. I say that because it demonstrates that the BBC is much more than its editorial decision making at the national level. Every day, thousands of BBC staff are telling our stories, representing our communities and being part of the fabric of this country.
As a former official of the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Communications and Theatre Union, I have spoken to many BBC staff and members of the National Union of Journalists and BECTU over recent days who are horrified by some of the coverage of this matter. They want accountability, and they want the BBC to restore its trust, but they also want to hear the message that their work is valued and that they are part of the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the talent that makes the BBC an institution and that that talent needs to be nurtured, while dealing with the leadership?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend not just for the point he made but for the compelling way in which he made it. Like him, I have been astonished by the calibre of BBC staff, whether the back-office staff who so often do not get the credit, the journalists who work tirelessly in communities up and down the country to tell stories that otherwise would not be heard, or the young apprentices who start out with the most incredible opportunities and go on to have amazing careers because of the institution that the BBC is and the work that is done to support them.
I know that this issue has had an impact on many BBC journalists. I want them to hear directly from the Government how much we value, treasure and support them. I also say to the House that in all the conversations I have had with major investors who come to this country to invest in film and TV production, they say that the BBC is—for all of them, without exception —a major draw because of the work it does in skilling up a generation of talent and providing the institutions and facilities those investors need to come here.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the statement, but this is not just about editorial challenges for the BBC; there has been a total lack of deftness in dealing with talent-related issues and other scandals over the past few years. There are also governance issues with BBC Studios—a commercial organisation with separate whistleblowing schemes—hiding behind the BBC brand. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the broader skills that are needed to make the changes necessary so that the BBC can maximise its huge global opportunities in both news and productions?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member is right to raise the lack of deftness—and, I would add, the lack of urgency—in the handling of some of the issues that have arisen in the past couple of years. Let this be the moment that that changes. That is the tone and nature of the conversations I have been having with the BBC’s senior leadership. I also echo the points he made about the skillsets required to ensure that the BBC can get on to a firm footing as we begin this next chapter.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I am no BBC basher; I want to protect it. This morning, along with a number of cross-party MPs, I wrote to the Secretary of State asking if she would ask the BBC board exactly why it delayed issuing an appropriate apology over the “Panorama” Trump edit, because, as we know, that delay inflicted further damage on the BBC, which is our country’s most trusted news source. I agree with Hannah Barnes, who said yesterday in a New Statesman article that the corporation
“must turn this crisis into an opportunity.”
Will the Secretary of State also seek clarity from the former director general Tim Davie on the worrying words in his resignation letter about how the BBC needs to be championed and not weaponised?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for the letter that I received earlier today. I have discussed the delay in issuing an apology with the BBC and been given a full account by the chairman of the board. It is not for me to answer on behalf of the BBC, but she will have heard that the Select Committee intends to call members of that BBC committee, and I am sure the Select Committee will raise that question with them.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will have heard the comments I made about the legal threshold that must be met for any changes in leadership. The Government appoint the chair of the BBC; we do not appoint individual staff members. The board member that he mentioned was appointed by the last Conservative Government and his term was renewed just weeks before the general election, so I cannot take the action that he requests.
The hon. Member mentioned the nations and regions, which are close to my heart as well. Through the charter review process, we will seek to ensure that the BBC’s direction can be driven through its nations and regions and that people in every part of the UK can see a fair share of content that reflects their lives, their communities and their contribution.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I spent time yesterday with journalists at BBC Radio Cambridgeshire admiring their dedication and professionalism, which stands in marked contrast to this shabby debacle that sullies a great institution’s reputation. Is not part of the problem the fragmentation of what should be a public service? Frankly, this failure is symptomatic of the long-term fragmentation of so many of our public services as a consequence of the Conservative Government.
Lisa Nandy
As I said to the House just a moment ago, the charter review marks the start of the next chapter of the BBC’s long and proud history. That will be the moment when we can come together as a whole House and a whole country to agree the future of the BBC.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
There are certainly many questions—particularly for those who deliberately set out to destroy the BBC—but I want to ask the Secretary of State this one. In the absence of the ability to remove certain members from the board, will she make a commitment that all future appointments should be conducted through a transparent process rather than being political appointments?
Lisa Nandy
The House was asked to approve the terms of the last charter. Similarly, the House will be asked to approve the terms of the next charter, which will set out how the BBC will operate for the next decade. It will certainly look at appointments, transparency and structures, and that will be the hon. Member’s opportunity to get involved.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
Many have expressed their annoyance at the BBC in recent days for being too woke, too Tory or too liberal—or, in my case, for allowing the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to appear on the “Question Time” panel more often than he has appeared in his own constituency. Is not the fact that the BBC has been attacked by every side evidence that it continues to make every effort to maintain balance in a world of increasingly polarised and divisive media?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes the important point. Although none of us should seek to downplay the seriousness of the failings that the BBC has admitted, accepted, apologised for and now must show tangible action to address, the BBC is and remains the most trusted source of news in this country, and one of the most trusted sources of news all over the world. We lose that at our peril.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Like many in the Chamber, I want to see the BBC rebuild public trust and return to its core mission, but it must be recognised that as a result of its pro-gender-ideology bias, it failed to adequately report on issues such as the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in children, the placing of violent men in women’s prisons, and the loss of women’s medals in sport to biological males. On top of all that, it has attributed the crimes of violent men to women. Calling a male sex offender “she” can never be responsible, impartial journalism. How does the Secretary of State intend to ensure that the BBC moves away from its current ideological approach on gender to one based on facts and evidence?
Lisa Nandy
I gently say to the hon. Lady that she said she wants the BBC to return to its core mission, but that is deeply contested, as we can hear in the House. I do not believe that it is the role of elected politicians to tell any broadcaster what it can and cannot produce and what it can and cannot say, or to get involved in the minutiae of editorial decisions. I do think it is the right and proper role of the House to ensure that editorial standards are robust, thorough, well thought through and consistently applied. That is what the Government have been seeking to uphold in the conversations we have had with the BBC in recent weeks, and we will continue to do so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
These are indeed uncertain times for the BBC and for the people who work in it. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we remember that the Reuters Institute’s Digital News Report 2025 found that the BBC remains the most trustworthy news brand in the UK, with 60% of respondents rating it highly for trust? Does she also agree that the BBC must respond to criticism in a considered and proportionate manner and carry out investigations with regard for due process, and that it should not be subject to political interference nor, for that matter, interference from commercial competitors?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the point about trust. The BBC is one of the most trusted institutions not just in our country but in the world. We seek to ensure that it upholds the highest standards because that is of such value and importance to all of us in the United Kingdom. I thank him for his words.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the nations and regions will form a very important part of the BBC charter review. To that end, she will know that over 90% of S4C’s funding is derived from the BBC licence fee. In the process of the BBC charter review, will the financial stability of S4C be a key consideration for the Government?
Lisa Nandy
I have been pleased to meet the leadership at S4C after what has been a difficult time. This Government reaffirm the importance of S4C to our national life, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman as we start the charter review process to make sure that that continues.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Staff at the former BBC Monitoring station in Caversham in my constituency played a vital role over many years, monitoring broadcasts from around the world. Indeed, they broke a number of important news stories over the years, including that of the Iranian revolution, which was only possible because of the public service model and the dedication of the staff and their skills. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today, but can I ask her to say a few words of thanks to the staff of the BBC for their continued work and for the BBC’s vital role as a public institution?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.
I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I echo the solidarity with BBC journalists that has been expressed across the House. Can the Secretary of State assure me and other Members that measures will be taken in the forthcoming charter review to ensure that all political appointments to the BBC board are made with full public scrutiny, and that such appointees will not be involved in any editorial capacity in future, in order to protect the integrity, credibility and independence of the most important bastion of public service broadcasting in Britain and beyond?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his words and Members across the House for the tone of this debate. I know that all Members feel strongly about the failings of the BBC editorial process in recent days, but it is a credit to this House that we can have a sensible and measured debate about the actions needed to address it.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
The BBC employs thousands of tremendous journalists who are diligent, truth-seeking and impartial. It is not perfect, but we must defend this national asset. We cannot be left to the wolves of the kind of channels that Trump prefers, which have values of propaganda, not of ethics and integrity. Will the Secretary of State protect our BBC from all further political interference, listen to the cross-party voices here, put an end to all political appointments and remove those already in place, like Robbie Gibb—if not immediately, then in that process?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady will have heard my comments to other hon. Members about the appointments process. The charter review offers this whole House the opportunity to look again at how those appointments are made and which roles exist.
On the hon. Lady’s points about the BBC and the environment in which it operates, the Government are particularly concerned about the blurring of news and fact with opinion and polemic, and therefore the inability of viewers to turn on their TV screens and understand what it is that they are watching. I have previously raised my concerns with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee about politicians presenting news on programmes that are not necessarily deemed news programmes. As politicians, we are required to have an opinion and a point of view. That is very different from presenting impartial facts. The Government are looking to address that matter.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The BBC is unique and special, and it is ours. Yes, it is absolutely a part of the national conversation—but, importantly, it is also a part of the regional and local conversation. I have fantastic local journalists in my patch on Three Counties Radio and on “Look East”, and the fact is that a local story, which a local journalist has gone out to find, can quickly get on to the national stage because of our BBC; that is special. Will the Secretary of State assure me that in the forthcoming charter review she will take seriously the protection and enhancement of local news coverage?
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are looking both at the charter process and at how we can help to support and defend local news through the BBC’s work. She will also know that this Government are developing a local news strategy to help our local newspapers to survive and thrive in an era in which they face significant pressure. She is absolutely right to say that local news is not just about reflecting the whole nation, although it does play that essential role; it is also often the training ground for some of our most talented journalists, who would otherwise not get those opportunities, so we are determined to strengthen and protect it.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I would fight in the last ditch to prevent the BBC from ceasing to be a public service broadcaster and from being broken up. Any large organisation can have bad actors who behave unethically, and that has happened on this occasion, but it does the BBC no service when people parrot the line that the person responsible for this crisis is not the idiot who tampered with Donald Trump’s quote but a former Tory spin doctor, one of 13 members of the board, who allegedly influenced other members of the board to somehow provoke the present crisis. The crisis has nothing to do with Robbie Gibb; it has something to do with a mindset that, on the front page of today’s Guardian, has the whole thing about Robbie Gibb and relegates the fact that a $1 billion lawsuit may be taken out by Donald Trump against the BBC to a tiny paragraph at the end of the article on page 2. If you wants to know what is wrong with some bits of the BBC, read The Guardian today.
Lisa Nandy
I am not entirely sure how to respond to that, but the right hon. Member’s views are now on the record.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
We have heard an awful lot today about the professionalism of the journalists at the BBC, and I wholeheartedly agree with that, but there are less of them now than there were last year and we hear that the BBC is in the fight of its life across a whole number of fronts. Well, when you are in a fight across multiple fronts, it seems odd to send some of your best fighters home, but that is what is happening to our journalists where there are less of them in our newsrooms. Does the Secretary of State agree that journalism, delivered free from fear or favour, costs money—and that it costs a lot of money to do it really well? Does she also agree that delivering that has to be at the centre of gravity for the BBC now and in the future, and that how we protect journalism and resource it properly has to be at the heart of the charter review?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend and I can assure him that that is very much central to the charter review process that we are about to begin. He is right to say that fearless and robust journalism costs money, and it is essential that the BBC is fairly and sustainably resourced for years to come. The Government are keeping an open mind about how that may may unfold, but what I have said—and I am happy to repeat it to the House today—is that we have ruled out funding the BBC through general taxation, because although it is absolutely essential that good journalism is well resourced, it is also absolutely essential that the BBC remains independent from Government and is able to hold us to account without fear or favour.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
It is essential that the BBC’s independence and impartiality are upheld at all times. I am afraid that serious concerns have been raised about Sir Robbie Gibb’s conduct on the BBC board, including alleged attempts to influence recruitment and editorial decisions. If the Secretary of State cannot remove Gibbs from the board and cannot end the political appointments now, what actions can she take to restore public confidence in the BBC’s governance?
Lisa Nandy
Everyone in this House is right to take with the utmost seriousness the failings that the BBC has accepted have happened over the course of this year, but I would gently push back against the idea that the public has lost confidence in the BBC. It remains the most trusted source of news in this country and, as I said earlier, in many other parts of the world as well.
In terms of the actions that I can take as Secretary of State, I am working closely to support the chairman of the board through what are obviously tumultuous times. The director general has agreed to stay on in order to see the organisation through the transition. We have already had discussions about the process for recruiting for a new director general and the need to strengthen the work of the board and senior leadership when it comes to editorial oversight. That includes, as I said a moment ago, a discussion about the mix of skills and experience that is needed at the highest levels of the organisation.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is absolutely right to hold the BBC to the highest standard, because that is the best way to defend our national broadcaster. Does she agree that it is not acceptable for Members of this House who are paid by the BBC’s commercial rivals—in fact, looking at the time, one of them is probably in make-up as we speak—to use their status as an MP to mount sustained and frenzied attacks that have only one aim: to destroy this national institution?
Lisa Nandy
As I said earlier, it is the legitimate, right and proper role of Members of this House to raise serious concerns about the decisions that have been made at the BBC over recent months and the response to them, but there is a difference between that and making a sustained attack on an institution that has stood at the centre of public life for over a century and belongs to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her answers and for her statement. It has been clear over the years that there has been a bias in the BBC, and I have had concerns over the last 12 months on at least four topics: BBC bias against Brexit; BBC bias against my party, the Democratic Unionist party—there are elected representatives back home in Northern Ireland who refuse to engage with the BBC; BBC bias for Gaza against Israel; and BBC bias against the free Iran Government in exile, with the BBC promoting the son of a former dictator. My goodness me, it is quite unbelievable. Two people have resigned, but the canker of editorial control is still there. So my question to the Secretary of State today is: when will it end? Is this just a pause or is this the end?
Lisa Nandy
As somebody who has shared my frustrations at some of the failures at the BBC over the last 16 months, and at the response at times, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that throughout this process I have very much felt that there is a recognition of the seriousness of this issue at the highest levels of the BBC. In the conversations that I have had with the senior leadership in the institution, there is also a discussion and a consideration of what wider changes need to be made in order to maintain and uphold the highest standards. He asks when it will end. I think the answer has to be: now.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, and particularly her strong support for the BBC as an institution that belongs to us all. With the BBC regularly rated worldwide as one of the most trusted global news sources, does she agree that a strong BBC acts as a bulwark against misinformation not only in this country but across other critical parts of the world where there are few other trusted news sources, and that the delivery of services to those parts of the world must be properly funded?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is not lost on anyone in this House that, at a time when other countries who do not necessarily have the UK’s best interests at heart are investing heavily in state-funded propaganda, it is essential that the BBC continues to be a light on the hill for people in times of darkness.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I have long been a champion of the BBC as a UK national institution, but at the last charter review I raised my concern about the prevalence of a metropolitan elite at the heart of the BBC—not just at UK level but in Scotland—who do not always convey that they understand or indeed respect rural or older constituents such as my own. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in order to preserve the BBC as a national institution, this charter review will convey an understanding of people right across the UK, wherever they live?
Lisa Nandy
I can, and I will. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s view that the story of the whole nation has to be told, and the best way to ensure that it is told is to ensure that all of us are involved in telling it, not just some. When we look at the charter review, there will be a particular focus on our nations and regions. I have said previously that, although I absolutely commend the BBC’s work—it has been a leader in the field of moving jobs, programming and skills out of London—I want to see a shift in commissioning power so that, in every nation and region, we decide the story that we tell about ourselves to ourselves as a nation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
We should be rigorous in holding the BBC to account, especially when it makes mistakes, but does my right hon. Friend agree that some of those who jump on any infraction with glee may have ulterior motives? Does she further agree that the BBC is a beacon of fearless, impartial journalism here and abroad, and that as misinformation and disinformation grow, and as attempts to attack media outlets by those suspicious of their values are on the rise, the BBC is needed more than ever?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend about the centrality of the BBC to our public life. All of us in this House should rightly be seeking to ensure that the BBC upholds the highest standards while defending and protecting it as an institution and considering together how we can ensure that it stands at the centre of our public life for many more decades to come.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Government announce last week that they will tackle fake news in the curriculum. I always say to children when I go into schools that, “You can trust journalism if you can sue the person who wrote it,” so I actually welcome the writ coming from America, though I hope it can be sorted out, purely to say that if something is wrong, you can do that. The basis of why we are here today—forget all the politicking about who is on the board, what it is about Trump and anything else—is that the BBC faked a piece of news. We have to get to the heart of how that happened. May I ask that the Secretary of State use her offices to work with the current director general to get right to the heart of how this was ever allowed to happen? We have heard and all believe that the BBC is a respected journalistic organisation, but this is probably the biggest crisis it faces because right now we can honestly say that it faked the news.
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member asked me to use the office I hold to ensure that we get to the bottom of this and to ensure full transparency, and I will of course do that. The whole House will be grateful to the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for taking action quickly to ensure that that account is transparent and open to the public.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Sometimes when assessing things like the BBC, there is the Westminster bubble and then the real world outside. Some of us in Northern Ireland have been pressing the BBC for many years to be more transparent, independent and impartial, so this latest debacle is but one in a long line. We are not talking about light entertainment or drama—no one questions that, and that by and large gets a green light from most people—it is news and current affairs. There is no point in people distracting by introducing a conspiracy within the BBC board. Is now not the time to start afresh with a transformed BBC service to give us the impartial news service that many of us have demanded for years?
Lisa Nandy
The charter review will provide us with an opportunity to do just that.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Why does the Minister think the BBC’s national leadership has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds of licence fee payers’ money resisting attempts to publish the 2004 Balen report? Does she suspect, like I do, that it might be because the conclusions drawn 20 years ago are very similar to the conclusions that have been made apparent in the now leaked Michael Prescott report, particularly around a culture that makes it possible for it to be okay to doctor and distort the facts to suit a preformed agenda?
Lisa Nandy
That is a question for the BBC, and when members of the editorial committee appear before the Select Committee, I am sure that that is something the Committee will rightly challenge them on.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Earlier this year, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I had the great privilege of visiting the 77th Brigade—the anti-Russian disinformation brigade of the British Army down in Newbury. The experts on the front line of the information wars told us that the British population are being subjected to tens of thousands of messages every single day designed to seed distrust between Government and citizen and break our belief in our institutions. The United Kingdom is in an incredibly privileged position in that we have a state broadcaster that provides us with something that might resemble a national culture. If we were to lose that, we would be feeding the forces that stand against us. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC provides a vital connection to our past that unifies us and that, as well as being a source of education, information and entertainment, it is also a great source of national resilience?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. If the BBC did not exist in the times that we live in, we would seek to invent it.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
To touch on something that the Secretary of State alluded to earlier, one of the vital services that the BBC provides is supporting local media—an industry that I worked in for 10 years. It does that through its local democracy reporting scheme, which helps bring forward the next generation of journalists and reporters. Does she agree that it is therefore imperative that the BBC wins back trust, discipline and a culture of impartiality so that this can be inculcated into the next generation of journalists, so that they can report without fear or favour?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with the hon. Member. That is why this Government will also resist recent attacks on the institution itself by Members from across the House. The local democracy reporting service that he talks about is a vital part of our local democracy. It also helps to create the next generation of journalists who might not otherwise have the opportunity to work in journalism and tell the stories that matter so much to all of us across this House.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Robbie Gibb—faithful or traitor?
Lisa Nandy
Perhaps I can hear my hon. Friend’s views about that over a few drinks later on.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The fact of the matter is this is not just about manipulating the speech of a President the BBC clearly detests. There were other allegations made about promoting Hamas propaganda, producing fake stories about race bias, censoring people who were gender critical, and promoting stories with a one-sided view of climate change, as well as a whole range of other issues. What has been the response of the BBC? It rolls out the lefty luvvies to try to justify its position and then to indicate that it was the victim of some right-wing coup. Does the response not show that this body—which has fabricated the news, misused its monopoly and hidden behind the protection of politicians in this House who were far too cowardly to take it on over the years—is not capable of change? Like many millions across the United Kingdom, I object to paying for it. I hope that in the review the Minister will decide that there should be no more enforced taxation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not agree with that or with his characterisation of an institution that plays a vital role in this country. I gently say to him that I do not think most people do either. While I am sure the public have been extremely concerned about the serious failings that have been accepted this week by the BBC, it still remains the most trusted source of news in this country.
I say to all Members of this House that there has been a lot of discussion today about individuals being held responsible for all the problems at the BBC, whether they are individuals who serve on the board or as senior executives. My assessment of the failures that have been admitted over recent years is that they stem not from an institutional bias, but from a need to have sufficient rigour and oversight at the top of the organisation that is applied consistently across the board. That is something I know the chairman of the BBC is seeking to achieve, and as a Government we stand ready to support it in that.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In the early 2000s, I lived in Hanoi alongside my husband who was reporting on Vietnam for the BBC, and I saw for myself how he and the BBC worked very hard for truth. He then spent a year in Myanmar, working alongside extraordinarily brave local journalists who sought to expand public broadcasting under a military dictatorship. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC’s trusted journalism is one of our strongest defences against disinformation, both at home and abroad?
Lisa Nandy
I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the work that BBC Verify does in helping to empower our citizens to navigate a difficult news environment.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
“Auntie” is definitively a monopoly. When Mr Reith wrote into the charter that she should inform, educate and entertain with complete impartiality, he did it for good reason. This recent disgusting episode with this “Panorama” programme, where we have undermined our relationship with probably our greatest ally, is just the tip of the iceberg. Would the Minister agree that now is the time to responsibly defund this monopoly? If she does not, would she agree that it is time for root-and-branch reform with a view to ensuring that, in the same way that she has done with football club boards, we see people from across the country who are actually forced to pay for this service represented on the board of the BBC?
Lisa Nandy
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I strongly disagree with him on the first point. On the latter point, the issue of accountability to the public, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) raised a moment ago, is something that we have been thinking about with the senior leadership of the BBC and others as we approach the charter review. I would certainly be happy to discuss that with the hon. Gentleman.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Last week, we learned that the BBC upheld a complaint about presenter Martine Croxall. It is alleged that she changed—correctly —the wording of “pregnant people” to “women”. Somehow, the BBC found her eye-roll to have conveyed a personal view. There are two genders—male and female —and one of those genders can become pregnant: women. That is a scientific fact, and it is the view of the Supreme Court. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that the BBC leadership abides by the Court’s ruling, and does she agree that the BBC’s lefty, woke agenda is certainly not in step with the majority of right-thinking people, who want common sense at the core of broadcasting?
Lisa Nandy
I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the BBC. It is not for the Secretary of State to start writing editorial guidelines for the BBC on the Floor of the House of Commons, as I am sure most Members would agree. It is my job, however, to work with the senior leadership to ensure that it has the right structures and people in place, so that it can have well-thought-through, easily understood and consistent editorial guidelines of the highest standards that are applied consistently and do not leave presenters and journalists struggling to interpret them.
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv FC fans from attending their fixture against Aston Villa.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Last week, Aston Villa released a statement that away fans would not be permitted to attend their game against Maccabi Tel Aviv on 6 November. The decision was taken by Birmingham city council on the advice of the safety advisory group, and based on a risk assessment by West Midlands police. That risk assessment considered a range of factors, such as the risk of protests, the threat of wider disorder, previous fixtures with Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, and the impact on the wider community.
It is a long-established principle, set out in law, that the police and safety advisory group are operationally independent of Government, and that it is for them to take decisions on safety. However, this decision has far wider implications. In any situation, there is a risk that must be assessed, but in this case the inherent risk that the event presents is in no small part down to where the away fans come from and who they are. It is in that context that the solution that is proposed—to exclude a group from attending—is wrong. It chooses exclusion, rather than looking at the full range of options available to manage that risk and include.
This is about who we are as a country. A lot of the public discussion about this game has focused on events in the middle east. Let me be clear: it is perfectly legitimate to hold and express strong views about what is happening in Israel and Gaza. People in this country are free to protest peacefully; they are free to lobby Government and event organisers about which countries can participate in tournaments; and they are free to choose not to attend events or purchase products that they find unacceptable. However, they are not entitled to dictate who can participate in competitions, attend a football match, or walk the streets, for fear of threats or reprisals. Whatever one’s view on the events overseas, that is a fundamental principle that this Government will fiercely defend.
Let me also be clear that the decision was not made in a vacuum. It is set against a backdrop of rising antisemitism in this country and across the world, and of an attack on a synagogue in Manchester in which two innocent men were killed. It has a real-world impact on a community who already feel excluded and afraid. It is therefore completely legitimate to support the independence of the police to conduct that risk assessment, and to question the conclusion that follows when it excludes the people at the heart of that risk.
Following the decision last week, the Government have been working with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to support them to consider all the options available and to tell us what resources are needed to manage the risks to ensure that fans from both teams can attend safely. If the assessment is revised, the safety advisory group will meet again to discuss options.
In the past few days, I have spoken to Jewish community groups, sporting organisations, fan groups and Aston Villa football club to ensure we have the fullest picture possible. The Home Secretary and the Communities Secretary have had extensive discussions with the police, local government and others. Ultimately, the law is clear that responsibility for this decision lies with local agencies. It is not for the Government to assess the risks surrounding this football match, but we are clear that resources will not be the determining factor in whether Maccabi Tel Aviv fans can be admitted. The fundamental principle that nobody in our country will be excluded from participating in public life because of who they are must be upheld.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the right hon. Lady for those comments, because I am sure most of us in this House believe that the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the upcoming Europa league game against Villa was the wrong one. It is also embarrassing and a disgrace. Have we really reached the point where we cannot welcome visitors from overseas to our second city, because we cannot guarantee their safety on British streets and in British football grounds? This is not how modern Britain should present itself to the world. Some, astoundingly including some in this House, have claimed that the ban on Israeli fans is for their own safety. That safety has been put at risk precisely because of the anger and hatred being whipped up by some of those very same people demanding a ban, such as by equating football fans with terrorists. We cannot give in to that kind of rhetoric, and I hope the Minister will join me in condemning it.
Football and all sport has incredible potential to bring people together. It should not be used as a deliberate tool to divide. The UK has a great and hard-won reputation for hosting major international sporting events, and banning an entire fanbase sends the wrong signal and may jeopardise our ability to host such events in the future. How disappointing this decision must be to the residents of Birmingham, who only three years ago welcomed people from around the world to the Commonwealth games, which showcased Birmingham and the west midlands at their diverse, vibrant and hospitable best. We therefore call on the Government to intervene and get this ban reversed.
Aston Villa and the safety advisory group may only be able to reverse the ban with guarantees of additional support from the Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm what additional resources may be provided and who will pay for them? Can she confirm when the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport were first made aware of the intent of the safety advisory group to make this obviously controversial decision? Is she confident that they talked to all the right people before making the decision? If the decision is reversed, what practical steps will be taken to ensure the safety of all fans and residents? While many football teams have some undesirable supporters intent on causing trouble, let us recognise that the vast majority of fans want nothing more than to enjoy a good game of football.
Does the Minister agree that, if we are truly to wrap our arms around the Jewish community, as the Prime Minister promised following the attack on the synagogue in Manchester, we need to take action and not just spout warm words? Finally, is she confident that this incident will not jeopardise our ability to host major international sporting events in the future?
Lisa Nandy
First, may I thank the shadow Secretary of State for bringing this urgent question to the House? I know the issue is of concern to so many parliamentarians and to so many people outside this place. I also thank him for his tone. I have watched with dismay as people in this debate have sought to use this moment to heighten tensions, and I commend him for how he has conducted himself.
The shadow Secretary of State asked a particularly important question about who will pay. Across Government, the Home Secretary, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister, the Communities Secretary and I are united in saying that we will find the resources that need to be made available, once West Midlands police has come forward with the risk assessment. We will work as one Government to make sure that those resources are forthcoming, because of the important fundamental principle that is at stake about what sort of country we are.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I was confident that the decision had been based on the right information. In recent days I have seen a great many “facts” flying around that do not seem to have any evidential basis, especially on social media, and we are working with our international partners to ensure that West Midlands police have the fullest range of information on which to base an assessment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the impact that this is having on the Jewish community. I absolutely feel and understand that, and I have had numerous conversations with members of the Jewish community over the past few days. We have vast experience of policing events in difficult circumstances in this country, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the behaviour of a minority of supporters in every club, and in this club in particular, is reprehensible, but that is not true of all fans. What is astonishing in this case is that it is unprecedented in modern times for all away fans to be banned because of the behaviour of a small minority, and we are working with the police to help them to look at that in the round.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we need action, not just warm words. Having met Jewish fans, I am particularly concerned about the impact that some of the events in the middle east are having not just on national competitions, but on grassroots sport. I have committed myself to working with them on that, to ensure that young people in this country can turn up at local grassroots events and not feel anxious about participating, or not being able to participate, because of who they are.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the signal that this sends to others around the world. That is not lost on us. We are a tolerant, diverse nation, and Birmingham, as one of our great cities, is a great example. That is what we are fighting to uphold and defend, and that is the Britain in which we believe. The message from this Government is that we will always defend that country. We are a better country than some of the comments that have been made and the actions that have been taken in the last week, and we are determined to uphold that.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend will know from her discussions with the Jewish community—which will have been similar to those that I have had following the dreadful murders at the Heaton Park synagogue just over a fortnight ago—what they want is to be assured by the Government, local authorities and other security authorities that they can live and walk about in this country in complete safety. Whatever the risk assessment in Birmingham was, it would be a disgrace and a shame if this country could not guarantee the security of a group of a group of Jewish fans, coming from Israel, walking down our streets. Can my right hon. Friend give that assurance to this House this afternoon?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his Jewish constituents. I have met Jewish community organisations over the last few days to give them that assurance that the Government will always defend and uphold their right to participate fully in public life, and that includes being able to attend football matches. In a number of the discussions that we have had with partners, they have made the point to us that many of the people who want to attend this match as Maccabi Tel Aviv fans are actually British citizens who live here in the United Kingdom. That should be in all our minds when we think about whom we are excluding from being able to attend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from attending their team’s Europa league match because West Midlands police could not keep the fans safe is a serious mistake, and sets a dangerous precedent. We appreciate the difficulty in ensuring the safety of fans and local communities, but the Liberal Democrats believe that this decision must be reversed, and that the Government should work alongside local authorities and the police to ensure that the match goes ahead with both sets of fans. The situation at Maccabi Tel Aviv’s match in Israel this weekend reminds us of the importance of ensuring that our police forces have the resources and support that they need to keep major events safe. The UK has made significant progress in tackling football hooliganism, but the police must always be prepared for small numbers of fans who seek to cause trouble. Will the Minister recommend “bubble-like” security restrictions to boost security checks and police presence around the stadium to ensure that everyone is served and protected?
The Home Secretary said that she did not know about the fans being banned until the night before it was announced, but she was apparently aware as early as last week that a decision was being made. Can the Minister clarify when the Home Secretary was made aware of the potential ban? If she knew last week, why did she not intervene earlier?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; I will try to address them all. I think the Home Secretary has given a full account of the fact that she was kept updated about these events, but the decision was not communicated to the Government until, sadly, we saw the statement from Aston Villa on the recommendation of the police. I want to be really clear that the police have a role here that is operationally independent of Government, and that they have a right and responsibility to assess the risk. I have no basis to believe that the police did anything other than act in good faith in trying to make that assessment.
The reason that the Government have intervened in this case is because we believe that it has far wider implications. The upshot of the decision is that it breaches a fundamental principle about who is entitled to participate in public life and walk our streets safely. Because of that, we have been forthcoming with all the support and resource that the West Midlands police may need in order to ensure that this game can go ahead in the manner that the hon. Lady suggests.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
The people charged with the protection of public safety carry a heavy burden, and not all the information that they consider has yet been laid out in the public domain. However, I have deep concerns about the principle of block-banning entire groups of opposition fans—some of whom, let us not forget, may be UK residents or nationals—and about some of the descriptions of Birmingham in parts of the press and other areas of our political life that are not a true account of our city. Does the Secretary of State agree that Birmingham overwhelmingly remains a diverse and welcoming place, and will she join me in commending the calm leadership that the council leader, John Cotton, has brought to bear by calling for a review?
Lisa Nandy
My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary has worked very closely with Birmingham city council, and I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about the leader and commend the council for the constructive way in which it has worked with us, the police and other local agencies in order to deal with this issue. We have also worked very constructively with the West Midlands police, Aston Villa football club and a whole host of agencies in order to try to resolve the situation. He is right to say that it is unprecedented in recent times that an entire group of away supporters have been entirely banned from a game, and it is something that we in this country do not make a habit of. We have become very skilled at policing football matches, even where there is considerable risk involved, in a way that includes everyone. Finally, may I say that those who seek to divide and exclude people in Birmingham should consider the signal that it sends to the rest of the world about one of our great and vibrant cities?
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
On Friday, the club’s chief executive raised concerns about what the ban on fans actually signals. The Secretary of State will be aware that this is not the first time we have heard about Jewish people not feeling safe at either cultural or sporting events, whether that was the scenes at Glastonbury this year or the boycotts, protests and cancellations of Jewish performers at venues around the country. I am really grateful for the Secretary of State’s commitment today, but can she set out a bit more on what specifically she is doing to ensure that Jewish people feel safe and welcome to participate in cultural life in the UK?
Lisa Nandy
Earlier this year, I hosted a roundtable with Lord Mann and the Board of Deputies to discuss the role of Jewish people in the widest range of public life, particularly in relation to arts, film, TV, broadcasting and media. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that this specific case is not occurring in a vacuum, and we are working on a strategy to make sure that Jewish people are included and that their contribution to British public life is recognised and celebrated.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I would like to preface my comments by saying that everybody in this place was horrified by the attack on the synagogue in Heaton Park, and that my comments today are purely based on safety.
A year before the Hillsborough disaster, safety concerns at Sheffield Wednesday’s stadium were raised by an official, but the ex-council safety officer was told by bosses in 1988 to keep his nose out of such concerns. Nobody in this place needs to be reminded of what happened as a result of ignoring that safety advice: 97 innocent men, women and children lost their lives. We have safety advisory groups for a reason, and it is a slippery slope when safety concerns are ignored. I believe it is unprecedented for a Government to try to overturn such advice, and I respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State that bans do not go on, because we have had a lot of cases, both nationally and internationally, with the most recent one being Napoli versus Eintracht Frankfurt.
Can the Secretary of State be explicitly clear: has she seen the safety advice? If so, does she disagree with the safety advice? If she does disagree, can she tell the House on what grounds she disagrees? It is imperative that this House is clear, because if the Government are successful in having the decision overturned, particularly after the scenes we witnessed last night at the Israeli derby, people are going to ask questions.
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend. As somebody who represents some of the Hillsborough families, I say to her that we as a Government, and I as an individual member of that Government, take the safety of all fans and the wider community with the utmost seriousness. We would never treat safety as a secondary consideration.
My hon. Friend says that we are trying to overturn the police advice. We are doing absolutely no such thing, and I think I made that completely clear in the response I have just made. We are working with the West Midlands police and local partners to make sure that we take into account the risks they have raised in order to ensure that this game can go ahead safely with both sets of fans present. In the discussions about and the consideration I have given to the risks that the West Midlands police has highlighted, what is completely different about this case is not just that it is the first time in this country since the early 2000s that a decision has been taken to ban away fans entirely from attending a game, but that the risk assessment is based in no small part on the risk posed to fans attending to support Maccabi Tel Aviv because they are Israeli and because they are Jewish. We should be appalled by that, and never allow it to stand.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for the tone and the clarity of her response to the urgent question. I echo what she said about the police making the decision in good faith, but it is, as she has said, the wrong decision. Can I also echo what she has said about this not being the sort of country to make such a decision? It is not the sort of city Birmingham is either. There are outstandingly good community relations there, largely because of the excellent work done by the faith communities across the city.
Lisa Nandy
I echo those comments, and I take this moment to pay tribute to those faith organisations. The Communities Secretary and I have been pleased to work with them in anticipation of the threats of significant disorder that have been made by people outside Birmingham who seek to travel to Birmingham to create strife. Their message is ours as well: they are not welcome there.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It was reported over the weekend that, in August, a legal observer to one of the protests was arrested simply for wearing a Star of David because it was considered to be antagonising. Now, with the decision to ban the Maccabi fans from coming to the UK, there is a genuine cumulative effect on what it means for Jewish people in this country, and the effect on the families of Jewish people in this country who watch their friends and family being tortured about whether or not they have a role in this country any more. We should all be significantly aware of that.
If this ban is allowed to go ahead, there will be this challenge. The game after the Maccabi game is with the Swiss-based Young Boys, whose fans have been involved in two riots, including hospitalisations. If their away team is not banned, the question should be: what is different between the Maccabi fans and the Young Boys fans, and what is it that we want to talk about?
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As the Member of Parliament for the very area set to host this match and for the community whose public safety many Members of this House wish to play fast and loose with, I know the reality on the ground. I know that there has been a deliberate, disingenuous move by many to make this a matter of banning Jews, and to conflate matters of policing with those of religion. Just this morning, I saw a video of Jewish community leaders standing outside Villa Park saying that they too support the banning of this team’s fans, and I will release that video outside the Chamber.
Those who are not welcome in Aston are the hooligans who have a long history of violence and vile racism, with chants like “f*** the Arabs”, “we will rape their daughters” and “there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children left in Gaza”. It is these hooligans who are not welcome. Can I ask the Minister how many millions of British taxpayers’ money her Government are offering to overturn the respected expert judgment of the West Midlands police and the safety group?
Lisa Nandy
Can I just say to the hon. Gentleman that I am appalled by the specific incidents and chants he mentions, and that none of us in this House should seek to condone them in any sense? But can I also say to him that it is entirely disingenuous to say that you respect cohesion and inclusion when you are seeking to divide and exclude? [Interruption.]
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Ensuring that all fans can attend sporting events in safety and without fear must always be our first priority, and we must fully respect the operational independence of the police. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that this Government will provide the necessary resources to support local policing in this case, particularly in the light of the heightened and very deep concerns around antisemitism, to ensure that resourcing is not the reason given for the block banning of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans?
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
As a British Muslim who grew up in Birmingham and the west midlands and did business there, I was deeply saddened by this decision—I was saddened for the British Jewish community. We are a tolerant, diverse nation, and a tolerant, diverse region. This decision was bad for two reasons. First, it was bad for Birmingham and the west midlands, and bad for the British Muslim community. Many have reached out, saying that they did not want to be dragged into this and that they feel similar amounts of anger. Secondly, my worry now is that a flashpoint has been created. There will now be those who will want to take advantage of the fact that it is in the headlines. There will be those who will want to come and cause trouble, and drag Birmingham’s name, and that of the west midlands, through the mud.
Lisa Nandy
I acknowledge that. I, too, am saddened by the way this has played out. I am saddened about the impact on people in Birmingham, who I have always found to be extremely welcoming and tolerant, and who know that they are stronger for their diversity, not weakened by it. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that recent events and the way in which a number of people have sought to prey on them has heightened the level of risk. That is something that West Midlands police of course have to consider, but my commitment to him and to all Members of this House, and to the people of Birmingham, is that resources will not stand in the way of this going ahead.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)
Let me just say from the outset that all forms of bigotry are abhorrent. A Dutch police report into the disorder in Amsterdam at the Ajax versus Maccabi Tel Aviv fixture determined that Maccabi fans tore down a Palestinian flag, set fire to it and chanted, “Fuck you, Palestine.” That is vile, disgusting Islamophobia in action. How about preventing that from happening here, because there is an extreme hooligan element of Maccabi fans who consistently behave in that manner? Do the Government not see that Islamophobic behaviour is highly likely if these fans travel to Birmingham? What about the safety of our Muslim citizens?
Lisa Nandy
Look, everybody in this House is entitled to strong opinions, but they are not entitled to a selective version of the facts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that, among a minority of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans in the instance he raised, there was appalling behaviour, which none of us, including most Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, would seek to condone. But there were also attacks on those fans, and that has formed part of the assessment of risk that West Midlands police have had to make. I think it is just worth me reiterating the point about just how rare it is for away fans to be excluded wholesale from attending European football matches in this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) pointed out just a moment ago, we have had to deal with this in this country for a very long time. We have done it recently and in many parts of the country. We have found a way to police safely and effectively. It cannot be beyond our collective wit to do so in this case.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As things stand, the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans reflects so badly on Birmingham, the west midlands and our country, and at a time when football can often bring people and communities together. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will do all she can to ensure that any reviews under way are concluded before kick-off?
Lisa Nandy
I can hear and understand the right hon. Lady’s frustration. We are working at pace and pulling every lever at our disposal to give the police and Birmingham city council the support they need. The police need to be able to conduct that risk assessment and review thoroughly, because the safety of fans and the community must be paramount. We are working as fast as we can and are determined to get there as quickly as we can, not least to provide clarity to both clubs so that they can make the necessary preparations.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I know that this topic is very important, but I need questions to be short and answers to be just as precise.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
First, I pay tribute to the volunteers who serve on the safety advisory groups—a thankless but hugely important task—who will be really worried about today. The safety of football fans has, at times, been at the very bottom of priorities in this place. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that the safety of supporters is absolutely paramount in the Government’s thinking, rather than the politics around this matter?
Lisa Nandy
I am really happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for the work he has done over many years, and not just on Hillsborough but on football as a whole.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks and commend her for her conciliary tone and attitude. Yes, safety is paramount for all football supporters, but, as she has said, this is not taking place in a vacuum, and this country is now in a very tense situation. She mentioned a strategy going ahead to make Jewish communities feel more welcome. Can she outline a wee bit more of that, setting out what we might expect and when we might expect to see it?
Lisa Nandy
I have been extremely concerned to hear examples from the Jewish community in addition to the specific instance that we are talking about, with Jewish film directors having their shows cancelled, not because it was to do with anything in Israel or Gaza but because they were Jewish, and Jewish presenters being advised to stay off the airwaves. I am working with them, with the help and support of Lord Mann, to ensure that we pursue an overarching strategy, and I have also had discussions with individual organisations to ensure that where those incidents take place, those individuals know that they do not have to challenge those things alone.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the tone in which she delivered it. The police always act in the interests of public safety, and I am sure there was no antisemitic intent. It is the threat of the mob that has led to this decision. Does she agree that we must never allow the rule of the mob?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend the right hon. Lady for her statement, which covered everything precisely. I disagree with one or two of those who have come out against her on this matter. I simply say this: when the partial assessment was done, everybody centred on what happened in Amsterdam, but when they played a game in Istanbul there was no trouble at all. It is a bit partial to choose one bit of evidence over the other. I simply say that with the rise of antisemitism now in the UK, the right hon. Lady is making the right decision to protect those people.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He raises the important question of whether this decision is proportionate, and whether, if there had not been a risk to the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans because of where they come from and who they are, this decision would have played out in the way that it has. That is what is exercising a lot of Members of this House, and it is obviously a view that we share.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Is it not the case that the police, acting on intelligence, believe that Maccabi fans should not be allowed to attend the match for public safety reasons? Their record of hooliganism will have contributed to that. Such bans have happened with fans of other teams across Europe, yet in this case there has been a dangerous push to once again claim that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Should the Government not just admit that they have it badly wrong on this and let the police do their job without political interference? Surely the real issue here is the right of local people to be kept safe.
Lisa Nandy
The difference in this case is that what has tipped the balance of the decision is the risk presented to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans because they are Israeli and, in many cases, because they are British and Jewish.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
What has happened is that a political campaign—led, I am ashamed to say, by Members of this House—has caused the police to change their decision and calculation. The Secretary of State is right to suggest that this is not simply an operational decision. She is talking a good game, but she also says that all she can do is question the conclusion of the police, and now she is offering more resources and asking them politely if they will change their decision. Do the Government not recognise that, under the Police Act 1996, they have the power to direct police forces to make certain decisions and, if necessary, to dismiss the chief constable? If they do not, will the Government clarify the law to ensure that they do have the power to overturn decisions like this?
Lisa Nandy
There is a long-established principle in this country, as set out in law, that the police are operationally independent, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman seek to question that. I have been clear that the risk assessment and decisions around what would be needed for the game to go ahead safely, with all fans present, is for the police. The right and proper role of the Government is to work with and support the police to ensure that that happens.
It is not just a question of resourcing. We are looking at a whole range of factors and practices that are well established in this country and across Europe, including ensuring that there is transportation to get fans safely to and from the game. We are looking at the number of ticket sales made available to away fans, as well as measures that have been tried and tested in order to ensure that those who would seek to create trouble are excluded from the game. It is absolutely not right to characterise the position of this Government as simply standing on the sidelines. The fundamental principle that people, whoever they are, should be entitled to walk the streets and attend football games in our country is, for us, non-negotiable.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State will find the irony in the fact that last weekend—as I am sure they will next weekend—premier league footballers took the knee to demonstrate the need to drive out racism from football. What has happened here is antisemitism at its heart. If the issue is the safety of the fans outside the ground, it is the case in many away matches that away supporters are escorted by the police on coaches to the entrance and then collected from the exit to go back to the airport. There is no reason why that cannot be done now. Will the Secretary of State go back to the police and say, “Let’s make people safe”? I support Tottenham Hotspur, and we have a massive Jewish population among our fans. If this means that we are not safe to go to Aston Villa because of attitudes outside the ground, that is a demonstration that in the UK Jewish people are not safe on our streets.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the very clear message that she has given today. Is it not a fact that, despite some of the excuses coming from Members behind me, this is all about the religion of the supporters who will be attending this match, and indeed that the only people they are likely to be in danger from are the hate mobs we have seen marching across our streets for months, waving Palestinian flags and supporting terrorists? Would she agree that the police ought to be told: “You need to make the streets safe for everyone, Jewish people as well as anyone else”? That is their duty, and they should live up to that.
Lisa Nandy
I would say that it is all of our duty to ensure that we live up to that as a country, and in the vast majority of cases we do. I also make the point to those who say that it is perfectly legitimate to try to drive the fans out of the game that our assessment is that the vast majority of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who want to attend are British. The only distinguishing feature is that they are Jewish.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
My Jewish community have been coming to me for years to say how unsafe they feel and that antisemitism has reared its head in this country for many years. The Secretary of State’s tone is welcome, and she is absolutely right, but let me put it bluntly: Jewish hatred in this country has grown and grown. May I ask the Secretary of State to pull every lever she can to ensure that the idea of Jewish hatred is not borne out by people saying, “Because you are Jewish or because you are Israeli, we hold you all responsible for the actions of a Government”? The reality is that that is xenophobia, racism and antisemitism, and it needs to be called out.
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to join the right hon. Member in calling that out.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in coming to the decision, the authorities in Birmingham took account of the behaviour of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans on many other occasions in many other places and decided it was unsafe for the match to be played in Birmingham? It is absolutely not about banning Jewish people, or any other people, from going to the match or going to Birmingham. Can we separate the issue about the behaviour of a group of fans from the wider question of how everybody—whether Jewish, Muslim or anything else—must be safe to walk the streets of this country?
Lisa Nandy
On the right hon. Member’s last statement —that everybody must be safe to walk the streets of this country—I agree with him. Perhaps he might make that point to the people he now associates with on his left and right, because that is not what we have heard from them in the last few weeks.
Can I just clear this up? I have heard a lot of hot takes on social media about the evidence on which the police relied to come to their decision. It is right to say that the police, as we would expect, took into account in particular the game in Amsterdam at which Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were present and where a small element caused the most appalling disorder, but they also took into account the real risks presented to Maccabi Tel Aviv fans on the basis that Maccabi Tel Aviv are an Israeli team and many of the fans who would attend are Jewish. I hope that the right hon. Member will be as exercised about that as he is about the behaviour of those fans.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Hopefully we can rely on the police to arrest any hooligans who break the law, whichever team they are supporting. Will the Government take into account the fact that—knowing the way in which terrorist minds work—as there will be such a concentration of police resources on this particular location, Jewish establishments in that part of the country need to be extra careful on that day, such that advantage is not sought to be taken by people who mean them harm?
Lisa Nandy
The right hon. Member will be aware, because it has all played out publicly, that there have been specific threats against Jewish people and Jewish organisations. We and the police are taking that extremely seriously.
Because of the way in which those on all sides of the debate have sought to heighten tensions over the past week, there are concerns about the safety of a whole range of people across the community—Muslims, Jews and the wider community. A number of hon. Members have made the point that far more work needs to be done to defuse those tensions, to take the heat out of the situation, to support everybody in this country and, in particular, to be emphatic, as the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) said just a moment ago, that nobody in Britain is responsible for the events playing out in the middle east. To hold people—whether British Muslims or British Jews—responsible is entirely unacceptable.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Last year, the chief constable of the West Midlands police force told Muslim elders that he would always police without fear or favour and that he would not tolerate any sort of racism, but the banning of Maccabi fans is quite clearly racism. Does the Secretary of State agree that if the police chiefs cannot police a football match, they should no longer be in office?
Lisa Nandy
I do not think it helpful to question people’s motives. In the work we have done with West Midlands police, I have no hesitation in saying that they have made an assessment of the risks, as is their responsibility. What happens next is not just a question for them; it is a question for all of us.
The police have done their job to assess the safety and risks posed across the board. The Government have intervened in this case because the decision they have come to has wider implications that we believe have led to the wrong decision, and that cannot stand. However, I do not question the police’s motives for a moment. Our job is to work with them and support them to be able to police the match in a way that ensures that people can attend, and do so safely.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The message that this decision sends is that the police will bow to religious pressure, and it legitimises antisemitism. The Secretary of State made reference to the game between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv. The vast majority of fans arrested that evening were Ajax fans. Ajax are playing Chelsea at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening, but no one has talked about banning its fans from attending that game. Article 27.04 of the Europa league regulations states that
“to ensure that a rescheduled match can be completed, if necessary without spectators, the home club must have access to a back-up stadium”.
Given that it is now likely that this fixture will attract bad faith actors to Birmingham who are not fans of either team and who are looking to cause trouble, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of playing the match behind closed doors at a neutral venue, or a venue where the police are prepared to provide security?
Lisa Nandy
We as a Government are not prepared to accept that people cannot attend a football match in Birmingham because of who they are. There are many, many Aston Villa fans who are looking forward to this fixture. There is no risk posed by them. It is in their home city and they should be able to attend. It is also our strong view, as the hon. Gentleman sets out, that the majority of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should be allowed to attend, as they have done safely at many other matches, and not be discriminated against because of who they are. We are working with the police and other local partners to make sure that we do everything we can to achieve that end and deal with the wider issues that many Members here have raised.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
Maccabi Tel Aviv’s racist fan hooliganism cannot be separated from Israeli militarism. Many of these fans—[Interruption.] Many of these fans are active or former soldiers who have taken part in Israel’s genocide in Gaza. They should be investigated for war crimes the moment they set foot on British soil, not welcomed into our stadiums. Let us be clear: this Labour Government are no innocent bystander. They have armed Israel’s genocide, they have provided diplomatic cover and they have shamefully denied that genocide is even taking place. So I ask the Minister: is there anything this Labour Government will not do to defend the genocidal apartheid state of Israel?
Lisa Nandy
I like the hon. Lady, but I have to say that she is doing the people of Birmingham no favours with that sort of rhetoric. The conflation that she makes between all Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters and the actions of the Israeli Government is precisely what the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold was saying about blaming British citizens who happen to support Maccabi Tel Aviv for actions that are taking place in the middle east. I have to say that conflating being Jewish and being Israeli is in itself antisemitism. I think she should take more care with her remarks.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Birmingham’s best band is, of course, Black Sabbath and it has counselled us that:
“If you listen to fools, the mob rules.”
This is a case of mob rule here. The Secretary of State has done a tremendous job of setting out the Government’s position. Will she review, while maintaining police independence—[Interruption.]
John Cooper
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Back to the Sabs. Will the Secretary of State review the rules around sporting and entertainment events to make sure that this Government, and any future Government, are not rendered impotent in the face of the mob?
Lisa Nandy
We are not considering making changes to the principle that has stood for a long time about the operational independence of the police, but as I have set out to other Members, we are clear that there is a role for Government here and we are determined to play our part in helping to resolve this. [Interruption.] I have to say, listening to the racket that is going on in the corner of the Chamber, that I have just talked about the impact that this issue is having on young people in this country who are turning up, putting on their strip on a Sunday morning, going to play football and finding that they are not welcome. That sort of behaviour is exactly the opposite of what this House should be modelling.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State and thank her very much for her statement. I was saddened to hear of this decision and, more importantly, the message it sends to our Jewish community. This is a dire situation, and we must make use of UK policing services to find a way for this sports event to take place and for fans to attend in safety. Jews are welcomed and protected everywhere, as are people of all faiths and none. A scenario in which we give into intimidation and threat is a slippery slope to appeasement within our country. What steps will be taken to ensure the deployment of police from other areas? For instance, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been used just in the last month to do some of the policing. Police must be used to allow international supporters to attend and to send the correct message that we are one nation and that freedom is not zoned or excluded in any area of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Lisa Nandy
As I made clear, we are looking at a whole range of options to provide the support and resources that West Midlands police need. We are very clear that this cannot be a responsibility for it alone. There are wider principles at stake, and we are providing everything that it needs in order that we can live up to the principles that the hon. Gentleman just set out.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Government, politicians from across the House and the media establishment have condemned the proposed ban of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans as antisemitic, yet this group has a record of violent behaviour and racist chants, including “Death to Arabs” and the mocking of the killing of Gazan children. Given the UK’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, which rightly warns against holding Jewish people collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, does the Minister agree that the conflation of criticism of Israel—with its ongoing genocide, war crimes, breaches of international law and current genocide trial at the International Court of Justice—with antisemitism against British Jews or Jewish people in general actually undermines that definition? [Interruption.] I will not sit down.
Mr Hussain
And if the UK rightly imposes cultural and sporting boycotts on countries like Russia over war crimes, why should Israel be treated differently?
Lisa Nandy
I have made it absolutely clear that it is perfectly acceptable for people to hold strong and passionate views about what is happening in Israel and Gaza, and that there is a right in this country to make representations to sporting governing bodies and the Government about who can participate in—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is not listening, so I think I will just leave it there.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Antisemitism is vile, and no one should be prevented from enjoying their sporting game, whatever it may be, simply because of their faith. As a football fan, I take the decision to ban any fans very seriously, but the Prime Minister’s decision to interfere with the independence of West Midlands police and the SAG should concern all of us in this House, especially when the same Prime Minister failed to intervene when British aid workers were killed while volunteering for World Central Kitchen, failed to intervene when his own MPs were denied access to Israel and the west bank, and failed to intervene when the Israel Defence Forces boarded flotillas with British citizens onboard and detained them. Millions will now be spent on a football match to defend some hooligans—it is not all fans—who chant that there are no schools in Gaza because there are no children in Gaza. Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister should respect the independence of the police and the safety advisory group?
Lisa Nandy
Had West Midlands police made a different decision, I really do wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would have come to this House to question that decision. I am afraid that I suspect the answer is yes. This is part of the problem with this debate: the chants that he talks about I think appal absolutely everybody in the House. He characterises the Government in a particular way, but he fails to make reference to the very many robust actions that we have taken around the Israeli Government’s actions in Gaza: we have condemned them, we have sanctioned members of the Israeli Government, we have restricted arms sales to Israel, and we have been out there on the ground playing our part in peace negotiations and pushing for aid to get in at pace—we still are. But he does not reference that because, sadly, I think he is trying to gain political support for his position.
Only a few of them have bothered to listen to any of the debate, but if hon. Members really want to resolve this, I say to them that they should work with us to ensure that all communities can express their passionate, deeply held views in appropriate and peaceful ways but that this country can remain an open, tolerant, diverse place where everybody is free to walk the streets and attend football games regardless of who they are.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
After the conflation of antisemitism with the banning of football hooligans who happen to come from Israel, and the abuse that I and other people have received for supporting the ban on safety grounds, I must put on the record that I and those people are not antisemitic—never have been and never will be. The Prime Minister described the decision to ban the violent Maccabi hooligans by West Midlands police and Birmingham city council’s safety advisory group as antisemitism. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), said that the police gave in to extremist intimidation. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), called for the decision to be reversed, saying,
“You don’t tackle antisemitism by banning its victims.”
And there were racist comments by the would-be leader of the Tories, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who said that integration has failed in Birmingham.
Let me ask this: was it antisemitic for the Israeli police to cancel a football derby in Tel Aviv last night after those same hooligans forced the match to stop through violence and injury to fans and the police? Do we want those scenes to be repeated in our stadiums and on our streets?
Lisa Nandy
The decision that was made last night, as I understand it, was on the basis of rioting occurring at a live event. It was not a decision that is unprecedented in the UK from a safety advisory group in recent times—[Interruption.] Sorry, does the hon. Member want to know my answer?
Lisa Nandy
In that case, can we have a little more decorum, because there are people outside of this place whose lives are being directly affected by the debate we are having and the tone of this debate.
The hon. Member tries to equate the two, but the truth is that he reveals himself in the language he uses. He refers to the “banning of football hooligans” and specifically to violent football hooligans, but this is not a decision to ban football hooligans; it is a decision to ban all away fans from a game, which a safety advisory group has not done in this country for nearly 25 years. It was a decision taken not on the grounds that he suggests, which was the risk posed by Maccabi Tel Aviv fans; it was a decision taken in no small part because of the risk posed to them because they support an Israeli team and because they are Jewish. I would gently say to him that if he is conflating everybody who supports an Israeli team—the vast majority of whom by definition will be Jewish—with violent football hooligans, he should consider whether he can really stand in front of this House and say that he is not behaving in a way that is antisemitic.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I do not want to continue the debate. Are the points of order absolutely necessary right now and relevant?
Oral Answers to Questions
Lisa Nandy Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
This Government are co-producing a national youth strategy—the first in decades—to bring power back to young people, no matter who they are or where they live. I am really proud that we are directly investing over £28 million in youth programmes across the country this year.
Sam Rushworth
As a young man who owes as much to youth theatre as to my schooling for giving me the confidence to speak in this place, I know the importance of youth services. I am really pleased that the Government have the better youth spaces fund, which organisations in my constituency have been engaging with, and I hope that the Government will look favourably at what comes from Bishop Auckland. The process has brought to light just how stripped bare our youth services are and how few meet the 50% threshold of youth services provision. Would the Secretary of State or one of her advisers meet me to discuss how we can ensure that we have the youth workers in order to actually bid for the funds in the first place?
Lisa Nandy
We had to take the difficult decision to focus the better youth spaces funding on organisations whose main aim is supporting young people. My hon. Friend is right to point to the absolutely dire state of youth services that we inherited. A billion pounds was taken out of youth services under the last Government, and thousands of youth workers and hundreds of youth clubs were lost up and down the country. Our forthcoming national youth strategy will put youth workers and youth clubs at the heart of those plans, and we will invest.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Local charities would be better equipped to deliver youth services if they could maximise their income from sources such as the People’s Postcode Lottery, but in spring the Government refused to make the reforms that would enable more money to be available for good causes, despite supporting it in opposition. Given that this decision has proved quite controversial, will the Government agree to revisit it?
Lisa Nandy
We have heard concerns from across the House on this issue, and the Youth Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), would be happy to meet with the hon. Lady to discuss it.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
We all recognise the value of youth services, but the right hon. Lady will be well aware that many youth services, from mental health support to sport provision, are commissioned and then provided by charities, which are under quite severe financial pressures, yet incredibly charities were not exempt from Labour’s national insurance increases. Even children’s hospices were not. Why not? Is the Department engaging constructively with the Chancellor about the plight of children’s and youth charities? There is no point having a youth strategy if the Government are undermining the viability of the providers of the services.
Lisa Nandy
First of all, I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his place and thank him for the very constructive way that he engaged with colleagues from across the House as Sports Minister, including me. I hope that is a model we can replicate.
I really do recognise the centrality of charities to everything we are trying to do as a country. The shadow Secretary of State will know that my background at the Centrepoint charity and then the Children’s Society was what led me into this place. On his specific issue, we have protected the smallest charities, which will be better off as a consequence of our reforms. We have also ensured that the majority will pay either the same or less. We do recognise the challenges, however, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society has been working through those issues with charities as part of our work with the civil society covenant.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have been working with representatives from the creative industries and major tech companies to ensure that we have a copyright regime that is fit for purpose. But our message is clear, to speak directly to the hon. Member’s concern and that of many other Members of this House: if it does not work for creatives, it will not work for us, and we will not do it.
Rachael Maskell
Daisy May Johnson is an exceptionally talented author of children’s books in York, but her work has been scraped and reproduced by generative artificial intelligence. She has not given permission and has not received a penny, but she has lost thousands of pounds. The same can be said about artists, musicians, writers and other creatives. When the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 was going through this House, we were given a commitment that the Government would do more, so could the Minister set out what progress has been made and ensure that there is legislation on this in the next Session?
Lisa Nandy
I really appreciate the urgency of this issue. The example of Daisy from the hon. Member’s constituency is similar to examples from many other Members. As a Labour Government, we obviously believe strongly that people must be fairly paid for their work, which is why we have put transparency and remuneration at the heart of the principles that will govern our approach. Like I said, we have made progress with the expert working group, and we will be able to announce the details shortly. We are also establishing a parliamentary working group, which I very much hope the hon. Member will participate in, to make sure that we hear the views of people from across the country through their MPs. I will be able to deliver a statement to the House by the end of this year on the future of the copyright framework.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Government continue their haphazard approach to artificial intelligence and copyright. I wish they would get that resolved. One thing that has concerned and upset the sector was the comments of a newly appointed special adviser to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, who said,
“whether or not you philosophically believe the big AI firms should compensate content creators, they in practice will never legally have to”.
I am really hoping that the Secretary of State distances herself from those comments and that that is not the intention of her Government.
Lisa Nandy
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance: that is not the Government’s intention. He says that there has been a “haphazard approach”. Actually, no country in the world has yet managed to resolve this matter. We appreciate the urgency and we are determined to address this and become the gold standard. The creative industries are at the centre of our industrial strategy for a reason: because we know that they lead and light up the world. Whatever AI model develops in future, human, good-quality content will be at the heart of that. We have to and will protect it and I am happy to give him that assurance.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
We believe in the power of grassroots sport, which is why we announced investment of £400 million in future grassroots facilities. But we are going further than that and insisting that girls will have equal access to any facility that we fund, because girls belong on the pitch. I take this moment to pay tribute to the Lionesses and the Red Roses on their incredible victories in the women’s Euros and the rugby world cup. It was a particular pleasure to join the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) to cheer on the Red Roses. We want all girls to grow up not just with dreams of being able to match those ambitions, but with a real plan.
Noah Law
Access to sport is vital for not only our public health, but fostering a sense of community and reducing antisocial behaviour. Yet in St Austell, many of the astroturf facilities, such as the great one at Penrice school, cannot be used after dark because they lack floodlights. Will the Minister look at how small-scale investments of this kind in vital community facilities could help unlock all-year-round access to physical activity for people of all ages?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for being an outstanding champion for sport in his community. I would encourage Penrice school and others who have similar challenges to approach the Football Foundation, through which we fund floodlights and other small-scale investments. Previous funding allocations have been far too prescriptive. We believe communities know best what they need and through the Football Foundation, we are determined to deliver it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Earlier this week, the Committee heard from Henry Hughes and Nathan Young, two brilliant swimmers who are travelling to Tokyo next month to represent Britain as part of the Deaflympics. The competition has been running for over 100 years—longer than the Paralympics, in fact—but deaf athletes are the only disabled elite sports group who have no access to either Government or UK Sport funding. Will the Secretary of State join me in wishing all our deaf Olympians the very best of luck in Tokyo next month? Will she also agree to meet them on their return with UK Deaf Sport to discuss how this terrible situation can be improved and how they can be supported much better in the future?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member, as always, for raising an issue that has been raised with both me and the Minister for Sport. We are working with UK Sport to try to resolve it. Of course we will be cheering our athletes on in Tokyo—I am really looking forward to that—but we know that those opportunities are not available to all. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this further.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
This has been an incredible year for women’s sport, with both the Lionesses and the Red Roses inspiring a generation with their fantastic performances and historic successes on the pitch. The previous Conservative Government worked in partnership alongside the national lottery, Sport England and various national bodies to help to support these incredible athletes with investment in grassroots facilities, including the £30 million Lionesses fund, which directly increased opportunities for women’s and girls’ sports. Beyond the sentiments that the Secretary of State has already expressed today, will she confirm whether her Government will support a new Lionesses and Red Roses fund specifically for women’s sports? Will she also confirm that fairness and safety will remain the key pillars of guidance for female sports?
Lisa Nandy
It was a real pleasure, with the Prime Minister, to meet the Lionesses before they went off and then on to victory in the Euros. We have been working closely with rugby football and other areas of women’s sport to advance this issue. The £400 million investment that I referenced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) will double the number of places across the board, which will mean a significant increase in the number of women and girls able to access sports. My hon. Friend the Minister for Sport was pleased to launch the women’s sport taskforce, which will really grip this issue. I am happy to work cross-party on that; it is something that the whole House should be able to get behind and support.
Mr French
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer; hopefully she can pick up the point about fairness and safety in women’s sport in her next answer, because that was also part of the first question.
The Secretary of State will be aware that, alongside investment from Government and national sports bodies, voluntary donations and corporate sponsorship play a key role in funding our grassroots and professional sports clubs and leagues. For example, Flutter’s Cash4Clubs programme has invested £7 million in grassroots clubs since 2008. Does the Minister therefore share my concern that the Chancellor’s proposed racing tax will not only see thousands of British jobs lost across the country, but damage key sponsorship of a number of UK sports, especially British horseracing? Will she confirm that her Department has made it clear to the Treasury that it opposes this tax raid on our British sport?
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely recognise the point about fairness and safety, and I have had representations and conversations with many women athletes and competitors since taking office. Of course we want to be as inclusive as possible in the approach that we take, but we recognise that fairness and safety really matter, and we have been supporting the sporting bodies in dealing with that. It is a matter for them, but we stand ready to support.
In relation to the issues that the hon. Member raised about gambling, we believe that the gambling industry is an important part of the UK economy. We know that it brings joy to millions of people. Of course, future proposals on taxation are matters for the Treasury, but I can reassure him that we regularly engage with the Treasury to ensure not just that the voice of stakeholders is heard, but that we avoid any unintended consequences of tax reform.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Since we last met, the Football Governance Act 2025 has become law. The Independent Football Regulator now has a chair, a chief executive and a board, and it is wasting no time in putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.
I know the whole House will welcome the news of the ceasefire in the middle east, which we hope will bring an end to the appalling suffering in Palestine and Israel. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the many fearless Palestinian journalists who have reported so bravely from Gaza—248 lives have been lost. They say that truth dies in the darkness. They will not be forgotten.
Grahame Morris
I thank the Secretary of State for her comments. Despite previous reassurances from Reach plc, owner of the Mirror, Daily Record, Express and many regional papers, it has announced redundancies that put 600 journalists’ jobs under threat. Many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the continued erosion of our media landscape, and particularly the loss of experienced and professional journalists, which risks driving people towards fake news and misinformation on social media. Will the Minister meet the National Union of Journalists and concerned MPs from the all-party group to discuss this pressing issue?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in supporting not just local journalism but local journalists. They are an essential part of our democracy, and it was not lost on me that local newspapers helped to counter the misinformation and disinformation that was spreading online like wildfire during the disorder last summer. It is why we are developing a local media strategy, working with many of the organisations that he mentioned, but I would be delighted to meet him, other Members of Parliament and the NUJ to discuss this further.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I welcome the new Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his role, and I thank the Secretary of State for her welcoming comments to me earlier. She is right: we have had many conversations in the past about many aspects of DCMS not being overtly party political, and that is a good thing.
However, there are areas of disagreement, including this Government’s anti-business attitude and policies. Increasing national insurance and business rates has caused untold damage to swathes of DCMS sectors. Will the Secretary of State therefore support the Conservative policy of 100% business rates relief on the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors? At the very least, can she assure me that she is begging and pleading with the Chancellor not to do any more damage to those sectors in the upcoming Budget?
Lisa Nandy
I thank the hon. Member for his warm words. However, it takes some brass neck to represent a political party in this Chamber that in recent memory crashed the economy and left working people across the country paying the price. The demand for charities soared as a direct result of the Conservatives’ policies, while the ability of charities to stand up and speak up for the people they represented was attacked and undermined at every turn by his Government. I can confirm that we will not be following Conservative policies. We will be proudly flying the flag for Labour policies, which put people and communities back at the heart of our country again.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Lisa Nandy
As a former member of a Select Committee that the right hon. Gentleman chaired, I am acutely aware that he is always right. I have been pleased to work with the Lawn Tennis Association and others to consider what we can do to ensure that more of that funding is used for tennis facilities. I have received representations from Members across the House about how restrictive that funding was. We believe that communities know better which facilities they need, and I confirm that we have made changes to the funding allocation, so that it is easier for communities to access whatever they need, including tennis.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Grassroots boxing clubs do fantastic work with young people and provide a pipeline of future talent for our communities. Crawley has provided such leading lights in the boxing world as Alan Minter. Will the Secretary of State meet me and representatives of the sector to see what more can be done to support grassroots boxing?
Lisa Nandy
I thank my hon. Friend for championing grassroots boxing. Our Government believe that too many sports, whether that is boxing or rugby league, have been overlooked by Government for far too long, and we are determined to bring them back into focus. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock) has been working with the all-party group on boxing, and would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. May I also say how thrilled I was that Natasha Jonas received an honour this year? Boxing brings joy to millions of people, and it ought to be celebrated.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
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?
Lisa Nandy
As the very proud Member of Parliament for Wigan, which is the greatest coalmining community on earth—[Interruption.] I can hear that I have lost the good will of the House. I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the National Coal Mining Museum for England and to the fact that we keep alive our heritage and the history of the contribution that working-class people have made to this country. I am delighted that I will have more to say about that later today. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), has visited the museum, and I am keen to work with him to ensure that we get the matter resolved as soon as possible.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
This Government have wasted no time in taking action to increase the amount of support available to the minority of people for whom gambling becomes a problem. As I said to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), gambling brings joy to millions of people and it is an incredibly important part of the UK economy, but we are determined to ensure that support is there for that minority of people. That is why we wasted no time in introducing a levy that is helping to boost such support, particularly for young people. We are happy to continue the conversation with Members from across the House to ensure that we tackle this important issue, but on the specific proposal that the hon. Lady makes, we have no plans to introduce such a measure.
Several hon. Members rose—