Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr French]

That is quite a rehearsed line that the hon. Gentleman is seeing to play out. As we heard in Committee, the Minister has sought to reassure the House that UEFA has no problems with the Bill. If that is the case, why is the letter not being laid in the House so that all Members can vote with full confidence in what is being said? What is being briefed to the press differs significantly from what the Minister is telling Members today.

So far, the Minister has refused to allow Parliament to see that letter so that we can scrutinise the Bill properly in the fullest possible way and in the proper context. Let me will ask her again now: what is she so afraid of? Is she scared that, given the Secretary of State is already under investigation for appointing one of her donors as chair, the publication of the letter will prove to be yet another nail in the coffin of her regulator?

Let me now turn to schedule 2. Any regulator must be credible, and that means independent beyond any doubt. But what have we seen? A preferred chair with a hidden political donation, a Secretary of State forced to recuse herself only when exposed, and a revolving door—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr French]

I will give way happily.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, given that he has named me. May I ask him why the previous Government—including his colleague the shadow Secretary of State, who is sitting next to him and who was the Minister responsible at the time—actively headhunted the individual in question and added him to the shortlist? [Interruption.] They can shake their heads all they like, but that is true.

[Mr French]

The Secretary of State has, either deliberately or not deliberately, just misled the House. The gentleman in question—[Interruption.] Let me explain. The gentleman in question has already said—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sean Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we talked about rogue owners, I was only surprised that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), with his years of experience in this sphere, decided to walk out of the Chamber. But we will leave that for now and move on.

As I have said, the previous Government strutted on to the pitch full of promise, but when the whistle blew, they passed sideways, ran down the clock and then bottled it at the big moment. In contrast, this Government have shown intent and are driving the ball forward. I am proud to support this Bill in the Lobby tonight.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am so grateful to hon. Members who have not just spoken in this debate today, but brought the real-life experiences and voices of fans into this Chamber. This has been Parliament at its best, ensuring that those affected are finally heard and that action is taken. I am grateful to all Members who have spoken, regardless of whether the Government are choosing to accept the amendments that they have put forward. I wish to address some of the very many valid points that have been made during the course of this debate.

I shall start with the issue of player welfare, which is clearly of such concern to so many Members from all parts of the House. It was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for Caerphilly (Chris Evans), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) among others. It has also been raised by many, many other Members over the course of the past year both with me and my hon. Friend, the Minister for Sport.

I wish to reassure the House that although the amendment around player welfare does not fit within the scope of this Bill, that does not mean that the Government do not treat it with the urgency and the utmost seriousness that it demands. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we were privileged to meet recently a number of families who have been affected by this and who have been campaigning for justice for far too long. That includes John Stiles, to whom many hon. Members have paid tribute. He spoke very movingly about the experience of his father and his family. They are not wealthy people and they deserve better treatment. As a Government, we are determined to grip this issue. We are clear that football can and must do more. I will be pleased to update the House as we make progress in that pursuit of justice.

I also thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for his points about secondary ticketing, and the associated points that he made about the cost of football, which for many fans, particularly in the premier league, is of significant concern. This game belongs to its fans; it is nothing without its fans. It is important that fans are able to access the game that they love and that they have built. He will know that the Government wasted no time in opening a consultation about secondary ticketing across the board.Our message is clear: the time is up for ticket touts. The consultation that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and I launched seeks to work out how, not whether, to act on this issue. We are shortly about to publish the response to that consultation, and it will be before the House imminently.

I am really grateful to all hon. Members who have stood up for fans. Whether they are music fans, football fans or other fans, it really matters that they are heard.

[Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this Bill puts fans at the heart of where they should be, and that had the Bill been in place earlier, clubs like mine—Bolton Wanderers—would not have come close to collapse?

[Lisa Nandy]

I live just down the road from my hon. Friend in Bolton and has many friends who were directly affected by what happened at Bolton Wanderers, so I thank her for her tireless support for the fans and the town. Many people do not appreciate until they have been through a situation like that, as she and I have, that it does not just affect the football fans in the town. Bolton Wanderers stands for its town, as Wigan Athletic does; it is part of our identity and our pride. It is also part of our family inheritance. The chairwoman of my supporters’ club used to go to the football with her dad when she was a little girl. She now takes her children, and they will take their children. Football clubs are institutions that stand at the centre of our towns, and they deserve to be passed on to the next generation as part of our civic inheritance.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle) mentioned what happened with Bolton Wanderers. Fans of Reading FC across Berkshire, including in Bracknell, experienced something similar when they were able to support the club to be saved from an unfit owner. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is so important that we pass the Bill so that we can prevent what happened to Reading from ever happening to a football club again?

[Lisa Nandy]

When my club Wigan Athletic was in trouble because of poor ownership for the second time, I used those precise words. I said that this must be the last time this ever happens to football fans, but as my hon. Friend rightly says, here we are with so many Members telling heartbreaking stories about the near loss of their clubs—so I could not agree with him more.

I want to acknowledge to the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) that although we may disagree about the best way to improve access and protect the financial sustainability of the game, I do not doubt for one moment their sincerity in wanting to make sure that far more people can experience the joy of football. The Minister for Sport said to me earlier that it has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Cheltenham to get this Bill on to the statute book, so I am grateful to him for his work.

I turn to new clause 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who has done extraordinary work throughout the passage of the Bill. I want to address the point that he did not have time to speak to earlier. We absolutely understand why he is pursuing this matter, and he is right to do so, but we believe that the clause is not necessary. I am happy to pass on the commitment that the Minister for Sport made to me: she will write to my hon. Friend with a full explanation of why the clause is not necessary, and a copy of the letter will be placed in the House of Commons Library. On behalf of the whole House, I thank my hon. Friend for the expertise that he has brought to bear.

[Mr Betts]

As I tried to set out, my intention was simply to draw attention to whether the regulator has the power—it does not necessarily have to use it—to intervene if the domestic competitions that all clubs engage in are being damaged by competitions like the club world cup, from which a handful of clubs make multimillions of pounds. I wanted to make sure that the regulator had the power to deal with that.

[Lisa Nandy]

We believe that it does. As I said, the Minister will write to him on that point and place a copy of the letter in the Library so that the whole House can understand the Government’s position.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I do not really know where to start with this, to be honest, but I am determined to give it a try. When it comes to the Government’s preferred candidate, I gently point out to the hon. Member that this is a candidate that has been strongly endorsed by the cross-party Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He was appointed by the last Conservative Government to the board of Channel 4 and, as I made clear a moment ago, he was on the list that I inherited from the Conservative Government and the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who now serves as the shadow Secretary of State, along with a Conservative donor as well.

It is astonishing that the shadow Minister has come to this House, belatedly, with allegations of cronyism, and that the best and only defence that he has been able to offer for this breathtaking hypocrisy is that his right hon. Friend, the shadow Secretary of State, did not have a clue what was going on in his own Department. Can he not see how absurd that is?

[Mr French]

Will she give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

Of course I will. I would love to know the answer.

[Mr French]

Let me explain, for the benefit of Members who were not in the room at the start of the debate, that the discussion was about the fact that the gentleman in question said in the Select Committee that he was not approached by the then Minister, but by civil servants. The Secretary of State is trying to say now that her Department is not under investigation. Is that correct? Are you under investigation for this appointment?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. First, I am not. Secondly, the Secretary of State came very close to unparliamentary language in accusing another hon. Member of hypocrisy; I am sure she did not intend that.

[Lisa Nandy]

Out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to clarify. I think that the shadow Minister might be a bit confused. To add to the confusion, I refer him to a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about the way in which the shadow Minister has made an astonishing about-turn; having called for stronger regulation, he now calls for weaker regulation. [Interruption.] If he does not want to listen to my words, perhaps I can let him listen to his own:

“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans…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.]

Well, I preferred his earlier work. Let me say that although the shadow Secretary of State no longer backs his own Bill and will not act, this Government will.

Let me turn to something that is very close to my heart: the experiences that were given voice by many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Dartford and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who has been a tireless champion for Reading through very difficult times. She said, “Let Reading be the last”, and she is absolutely right. In the years that football fans have waited for this piece of legislation to come on to the statute book and for the promise from all those years ago to be made good, too many people have experienced the hell that she and so many others have been through.

It is only fitting that I finish with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has been tireless in her defence of her club and her town. I had the privilege of going to Morecambe to meet the Shrimps and the board, which she rightly referenced and which has done so much for the club. She outlined the impact more powerfully than any of us could, as well as the strength of feeling about owners who refuse to sell their clubs even when the impact of that would be to bring those proud clubs to the verge of collapse. It has been a privilege to work closely with her, although I wish it had been on something more positive, as I know she does.

I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box that this Government take a very dim view of owners who treat our clubs as playthings, rather than as the custodians that they are. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and all the Members of this House—or most of the Members of this House—for a constructive debate. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Having lowered the temperature, I trust that I can now rely on the shadow Minister to maintain the lowered temperature. If not, I might have to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

It has been 14 years since the Culture, Media and Sport Committee first called for change for football fans, and four years since Dame Tracey Crouch began the fan-led review that set out to fix the foundations of football and end the misery that too many football fans have been forced to endure for far too long. We have had four years of promises, and today we make good on those commitments.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock)—the Minister for Sport—and Baroness Twycross, who have steered this Bill expertly and with care to get us to this place. I thank the civil servants in my Department, who have worked tirelessly for many years to get to this point, and I particularly thank the Bill, policy and legal teams, who will be as relieved and delighted as anybody to see this Bill finally become law.

I also thank the many parliamentarians who have worked so hard with us all to get this Bill into a better shape, particularly by strengthening the provisions for fans in order to put them back at the heart of the game and to improve the backstop process. This is a light-touch regulator that will help to enhance the game, and I am really grateful to all those parliamentarians for their support.

I pay tribute to somebody who has become not just an inspiration for a lot of football fans around the country, but a friend to us all: Dame Tracey Crouch. Her fan-led review highlighted how too many football fans have been left with nowhere to turn when faced with reckless owners, financial mismanagement and threats to their club’s very existence. Her dedication and expertise have been integral to getting us to where we are today.

Although I am sad that I am unable to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), who steered the Bill through its first stages under the last Government and who no longer supports his own legislation, I want to acknowledge that, from the outset, it has been a cross-party effort to stand by football fans the length and breadth of our country.

Finally, I want to address our football fans, who are the best in the world. We are doing this for you, because for too long you have been treated as an afterthought at best, or as a nuisance at worst, in a game that is only great because of you. This Bill is for Macclesfield, for Wigan, for Bury, for Bolton, for Derby, for Reading, for Sheffield Wednesday, for Morecambe and for many, many more clubs that have had to endure the misery of being put last when they should have been put first. We promised in our manifesto that we would end years of inaction, and make the changes for which fans have fought for so long and which are so overdue. I am proud to be part of the winning team that have put our fans back on the pitch and at the heart of the game, where they belong.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to support children’s access to theatre.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Arts and culture were erased from both our classrooms and our communities for 14 years, and we are wasting no time in fixing that. I am really pleased that in February we were able to announce the £270 million arts everywhere fund, which will help a whole generation of young people to access theatre and the arts that they deserve, as part of their richer, larger lives.

[James Asser]

I recently visited Keir Hardie primary school in Canning Town, which has been involved in a scheme run by Disney that ended up with 42 of the children performing in “The Jungle Book” in the west end. The children are now absolutely enthused by the idea of performance and theatre, and the teachers tell me that their concentration is better, their confidence is better and they are showing benefits in their academic work. Does the Secretary of State agree that as well as the benefits of access to theatre, there are clearly academic benefits too? We need to see more opportunities like this, particularly in constituencies like mine, where circumstances often mean that children do not get access to this kind of thing.

[Lisa Nandy]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and throw the Government’s full weight behind the work he is doing to support this area? I have seen it for myself at Shakespeare North in Knowsley, where young people are developing communication and oracy skills that they would not otherwise have had, through the amazing work that those institutions do. That is why this Government are determined to turn around the appalling legacy that we inherited from the last Government.

We will shortly publish the interim report of our national youth strategy. I was appalled to find that only one in five young people in the last year has been able to access the arts in this country. We are determined that will change.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State is getting a liking for visiting Northern Ireland. With that in mind, what discussions has she had with her counterparts in Northern Ireland on the importance of further engagement between local theatres and schools across Northern Ireland—the very thing the hon. Member for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) mentioned—to ensure that young children can access drama in educational settings?

[Lisa Nandy]

We are very aware of the importance of the arts in Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has had discussions directly with our counterparts. It is a devolved matter, but it is the clear view of this Government that arts and culture belong to everybody. We are working closely with all nations and regions across the UK to make sure that wherever people grow up and whatever their background, there is no barrier to them being able to access the arts, which are an essential part of a richer, larger life.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

As we came into the Chamber today, we heard the tragic news of the passing of Diogo Jota, the Liverpool footballer, at the age of 28. I want to put on the record our condolences to his friends and family, and to Liverpool fans across the world.

These are the first DCMS orals since the spending review, which made real-term cuts to DCMS revenue and capital budgets. For months, we have been warning the Secretary of State not to let the Chancellor take money away from the creative industries, but it is quite clear that the Secretary of State and her Ministers failed to stand up for this key sector. She talks about the legacy of theatre for children, but of course, to have that, we need a thriving theatre sector. The Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre said that although the Government talk a good game on backing our creative industries, the figures tell a different story. They are right, aren’t they? The Secretary of State and the Minister failed to stand up for our world-leading theatres and creative industries, didn’t they?

[Lisa Nandy]

That is some brass neck from the Opposition given the appalling state of what we inherited—not only years of neglect of theatre in particular, but also the lack of investment in the infrastructure and the buildings, which left us with a situation where our great national institutions were struggling just to stay open. Across the country and in so many communities, the local theatre, which provided the access to the richer, larger life that we have been discussing, was allowed to close. The last Government showed a violent indifference to theatre and the arts in general. We have more than doubled investment into the creative industries and made them one of our eight priorities for growth. I am proud to be working with theatres, big and small, across the country to usher in a new golden era in which they can flourish.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to ensure the creative industries sector plan supports the growth of live music.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

May I take a moment to echo the shadow Minister’s comments about Diogo Jota? We received the heartbreaking news before we came into the Chamber that he tragically lost his life at just 28 years of age. The whole House and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) in particular will be heartbroken by this news, and I want to send our sympathies to his friends and family on behalf of the whole House.

The whole House should be proud of the creative industries sector plan. We worked on it with the creative industries as a whole and with Members across the House. I am really pleased that we have a transformative music growth package worth up to £30 million in that sector plan that more than doubles annual funding.

[Mr Frith]

The Secretary of State will know that Oasis kicks off their world tour this week, and I am proud that their first English gig is in the borough of Bury—a brilliant moment for Manchester’s world-class live music scene. Hosting the five sold-out shows with 72,000 fans a night brings the band 50 million quid, but it brings serious local pressure on licensing, safety, transport and clean-up, yet Bury receives no funding for those additional costs. The as yet unconfirmed suggested £25,000 community fund barely scratches the surface. While we are proud to host, should the legacy of such a global event really just be the prep and clear-up costs? Will the Secretary of State and her Department ensure that communities like mine see a fairer share of the benefit and not just the burden of hosting major cultural events?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is absolutely fitting that Oasis are returning to Greater Manchester, and Bury is a very fitting venue, not least because my hon. Friend has long championed live music and also indulged—or should I say inflicted?—live music on many of us for years. He will know that this Government are keen to ensure that the communities feel the benefit. In particular, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism has been working hard with industry to introduce a levy on arena and stadium tickets to ensure that we support small venues and help more artists tour nationally. The arts and music in particular are an ecosystem, which we are determined to rebuild after 14 years of neglect.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I very much support the creative industries sector plan. I think it will do a lot of good in ensuring that live music is promoted, and I hope to see some of the trickle-down effect that the Secretary of State talks about, but the creative industries sector plan also talks about establishing a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity. Can she say when we might see the promised report, when the working groups might be set up, and who will be asked to serve on them?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because I know this has caused considerable concern to many people in this House and the other place. We are absolutely committed to bringing forward legislative change that provides certainty and clarity both for AI and tech companies and for the creative industries, and to ensuring that transparency and remuneration are at the heart of that legislation. As he rightly says, the creative industries are central to the future of our economy and must be protected. The Government recognise that as well. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and I will bring forward the roundtables and working groups before the summer recess.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to support the delivery of major sporting events.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

We are absolutely committed to securing and delivering the biggest and best major sporting events, building on the UK’s global reputation. I was delighted to announce recently over £500 million to support the delivery of world-class events, with an additional £400 million going to grassroots facilities across the UK, so that people across the country who are inspired by the incredible sporting events and amazing moments we are bringing to our towns, villages and cities can get involved.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

Mr Speaker, I would like to thank you personally for hosting the women’s rugby world cup reception in Speaker’s House yesterday evening. It was a magnificent event. I took part in the competition in 1998—not this year, dash it all! With England hosting the women’s rugby world cup it is vital and women and girls see the legacy of those who have gone before them and championed their country. Sport is so important to the future of women and girls. Will my right hon. Friend join me in committing to securing a legacy for women and girls who will be able to see rugby being played across England and the home nations?

My last point, if you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, is that the women’s Euros kick off this week, and even though it is the wrong-shaped ball, I am excited to see the Lionesses and the Welsh football team in the competition. It is so important that we celebrate women in sport.

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is an incredible champion for sports in general and rugby in particular—

[Mr Speaker]

Rugby union.

[Lisa Nandy]

I know it is the wrong sort of rugby as far as you are concerned, Mr Speaker. We are really proud of this incredible achievement for the UK. It is fitting that my hon. Friend asks this question with exactly 50 days to go until the women’s rugby world cup kicks off. We want to make it the biggest ever. So far, 275,000 tickets have been sold.

Recently the Prime Minister and I were at St George’s Park watching the Lionesses train. It was quite a challenge to stop the Prime Minister getting involved, although I am not sure he would have come off well, given the level of skill on the pitch. What is so inspiring to the whole nation, whether they are fans of a particular sport or not, is the work the Lionesses have done to ensure that an entire generation of girls know that they belong on the pitch every bit as much as anyone else. We are determined to ensure that this women’s rugby world cup does exactly the same for rugby.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I 100% back the words of the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and send all our best wishes to the Lionesses as they start their competition shortly.

The Secretary of State will know that Royal Ascot last week attracted a viewing population of tens of millions, and “Glorious Goodwood” is about to do the same. Horseracing supports about 85,000 jobs across the UK and generates about £4 billion a year for the UK economy, but the Secretary of State will know that it faces a looming and imminent crisis. When will the Government really start to back British horseracing?

[Lisa Nandy]

Let me reassure the hon. Member on this point: we understand not just the joy that horseracing brings to millions of people in the UK and across the world but the huge economic benefits that it produces. We are absolutely determined to back British horseracing to the hilt. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), has had several meetings and discussions with industry, and we will continue to ensure we are present, walking alongside them in order to support them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister—a former rugby league player.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

The Government are on the ropes after a grand slam of unforced errors. Since we last met, we have seen the Secretary of State placed under investigation after appointing a Labour crony to head the football regulator, the Chancellor slash the DCMS budget and the DCMS Government Whip resign in protest. Own goal, knock on, double fault—whatever our choice of sporting analogy, it is clear that they have royally ballsed it up.

With Labour’s latest U-turn creating a fiscal black hole set to be £20 billion, what assurances can the Secretary of State give today that her Government will not go ahead with their planned tax raid on bingo halls, racecourses and sports betting, which will immensely damage sponsorship of major sporting events, fuel the black market and cost thousands of jobs across the country?

[Lisa Nandy]

I apologise; I could not make head nor tail of that, but this Government are absolutely determined to support bingo. It is something that I immensely enjoy—it is very popular in my home town—and will continue to do so.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

5. What steps she has taken to promote British musical acts internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

7. What steps she is taking to help ensure that disabled people have equal access to live events.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

It is crucial that access to live events is open to disabled people. We are supporting Arts Council England and its partners to develop the All In scheme, which should significantly improve accessibility in that area. Last summer I was at the Paralympics, where I was horrified to hear from young people with disabilities about their lack of access to sport in particular. This Government are taking every action and using every lever at our disposal to change that.

[Anna Dixon]

In my Shipley constituency, the highly valued Bingley arts centre has made great strides in improving accessibility for disabled people. However, with 78% of arts centres behind schedule on essential building maintenance, it is clear that more investment is needed. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement of the All In fund; can she assure me that local theatres such as Bingley arts centre will benefit from that investment to help them continue to make the arts inclusive?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter, and I sincerely thank her for bringing it to the House; it is not something we talk about enough. The creative industries sector plan contained £150 million-worth of funding for the creative places growth fund. Much of that funding is being devolved to local areas, and I will ensure that my colleagues and I work closely with my hon. Friend and with local leaders, particularly mayors of combined authorities, to ensure that as we roll out that funding, it is accessible to everybody.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions on charities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Hinder (Pendle and Clitheroe) (Lab)]

9. What discussions she has had with sports governing bodies on ensuring that they are compliant with the Supreme Court judgment in the case of For Women Scotland v. The Scottish Ministers.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

We have discussed the ruling with Sport England and UK Sport. It obviously has profound implications for sport as a whole, and those organisations are currently considering the implications for their own guidance. We are keen to support them in that, but my hon. Friend will know that national governing bodies set their own policies for who can participate in domestic competition.

[Jonathan Hinder]

More than two months after the Supreme Court clarified the law, there remains a long list of sporting bodies that are denying fairness to women and girls, including Parkrun and, remarkably, sports such as weightlifting and wrestling—the mind boggles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no need to wait for further guidance and that these bodies should take the advice of the Prime Minister and get on with it?

[Lisa Nandy]

As I said to my hon. Friend a moment ago, we have been working closely with sporting bodies to support them as they implement the recent judgment by the Supreme Court. As a Government, we have always been clear that, when it comes to women’s sport, biology matters and our sporting bodies need to come up with policies that protect fairness and safety, while rightly ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to participate in sport in some capacity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

11. What recent progress her Department has made on delivering the creative industries sector plan.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

The UK is a creative superpower and we are determined to take off the brakes that have been on for far too long. Our creative industries sector plan is the start of a 10-year journey that will firmly establish the UK as the leader in this, and we are working with creative businesses, big and small, in every part of the country to implement and build on this amazing ambition.

[Lewis Atkinson]

Thanks to a Labour council, mayor and Government working together, diggers are now in the ground at the Crown Works site in my constituency, preparing it for transformation into film studios. The selection of a private sector partner is now starting, so can the Secretary of State say how the Government’s industrial strategy for the creative industries, which specifically mentions this project, will ensure that the scheme is delivered, while also supporting the wider screen industry cluster in north-east England?

[Lisa Nandy]

Anyone who has ever visited Sunderland will know why the film industry is based there and why it is thriving there. We are determined to support that. We are working with Sunderland city council and the North East mayoral combined authority. They are confident that a private investor will be secured to support Crown Works film studios. I thank my hon. Friend for the incredible work that he is doing to support the project, bring great jobs and growth to north-east England, and help our amazing film industry thrive.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Last week, I spent time at the Box museum in Plymouth, before heading to Plympton in my constituency for the unveiling of a blue plaque to honour the life of Sir Charles Lock Eastlake, who was the first director of the National Gallery and chair of the commission to procure art for the new Palace of Westminster. One question that was raised was about tax incentives for philanthropic giving to museums and art galleries. I note the tax relief mentioned in the creative industries sector plan, so will the Secretary of State tell me if that will address the question raised with me by the sector last week?

[Lisa Nandy]

We are working on a plan to bring forward more philanthropy in the UK, as well as social impact investing. We think there is enormous untapped potential, and we are looking at all aspects of that. We will bring more detail to the House shortly.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

This Government are betting big on the creative industries. We have put them at the heart of our industrial strategy, with a sector plan backed by £380 million of investment that will boost regional growth, stimulate private investment and create thousands more high-quality jobs. Talent is everywhere, but opportunity is not, and this Government have wasted no time in turning that around.

[Alison Hume]

Scarborough Athletic football club is proudly 100% fan owned. Recently, the home ground that it rents from North Yorkshire council was declared unfit to play on due to botched astroturf installation. The club faces significant financial losses now that they need to play matches at another ground. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what support is available to secure the future of this beloved club, which is at the heart of our community?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work championing such an amazing local club, and we are pleased to support her in that endeavour. I encourage her to explore the support available via the premier league stadium fund delivered by the Football Foundation. The Government are pleased to be supporting grassroots clubs with £98 million of funding for the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme through the next financial year, which will build new facilities and upgrade facilities. If she wants to get in touch with me directly, we will work together to ensure that that benefits Scarborough, like every other part of the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I associate myself with the tributes to Diogo Jota. I understand that his brother was also killed in the accident, and my heart goes out to their family.

Since the Secretary of State’s statement on Glastonbury on Monday, it has come to light that the act in question had spouted equally vile rhetoric at another concert just a few weeks ago. Given that the BBC is seemingly able to pull live broadcasts when things go wrong at football matches, for example, it is extraordinary that it did not happen on that occasion. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the discussions she has had with the BBC? Why did the same thing not happen on this occasion? What due diligence did it carry out about the acts that were performing? Given that we are still waiting for a response on the previous Hamas documentary, is she satisfied with the conversations she has had and the urgency with which the organisation is acting?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, and I agree with him. The answer is that I am not satisfied with the response I have had. I can update the House, as I promised to do on Monday, that I have received a reply to the very many questions raised by colleagues from all parts of the House, and I am not satisfied with it. I have gone back to the BBC leadership to ask for further information, in particular—as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—about the failure to pull the live feed, the due diligence that was done prior to deciding to screen that act and the level of senior oversight that took place in the BBC during the Glastonbury weekend. I think that the BBC leadership has heard and will hear the strength of feeling in this House on this issue, and I expect further answers to be forthcoming imminently.

[Stuart Andrew]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. I have to say that I am as disappointed as she is that the BBC has not been able to come back with even basic facts. There were hundreds of BBC staff there, and it is not acceptable that it is unable to identify who ultimately had the final decision on whether to broadcast. The chairman needs to inform her, as a matter of urgency, who that was and what action they are going to take. While I absolutely understand the independence of the BBC, just as artists cannot hide behind artistic expression for vile commentary, the BBC cannot hide behind independence from accountability. I hope the Secretary of State knows that she has the full support of the Opposition as she pushes it for greater clarity.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that and for making the very important distinction between independence and accountability. We heard in this House, and I was able to bring to the House, the absolutely shocking stories of the impact that this issue has had on the Jewish community in this country. Given the seriousness of what happened, I expect there to be accountability at the highest levels.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

T2. While it could be said that the Conservative party could fit into a children’s paddling pool, we in Isle of Wight West take swimming—as well as our issue with ferries—very seriously. [Laughter.] I thought hon. Members would like that one. West Wight sports and community centre is an excellent community-run facility that needs to replace its swimming pool after 50 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how it might access grants to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the Minister join me in praising all the staff past and present, the council’s chief officer for leisure and wellbeing, Tom Kittendorf, and the portfolio holder, Councillor Maggie O’Rourke, on the recent 25th anniversary of the Rugby art gallery and museum? I was glad to attend and pay tribute to staff for the huge contribution they make to the three C’s: creativity, culture and community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that municipally run institutions such as that are gems shining bright in our towns, and that this Government will do all they can to empower them?

[Lisa Nandy]

I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s commitment to municipal facilities, which are often the only access that people have to amazing sports, art, culture, museums and galleries. Like him, this Government are determined to do everything we can to support them.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

T4. I recently visited the Cornermen project in my Oxfordshire constituency. Based at South Moreton boxing club, it provides professional mental health support for men in a sporting environment. Does the Minister agree that sports and leisure can open the door to mental health provision? What more can the Government do to nurture organisations such as the Cornermen?

[Lisa Nandy]

Recently, I was pleased to host a roundtable with many sports clubs from different sports, including football and rugby league. I was delighted to have Kris Radlinski there from Wigan Warriors—the greatest rugby league club in the history of the game—to talk in particular about the mental health crisis facing young men. It is not lost on us as a Government that sport, arts, and all the sectors we are responsible for often play a major role in helping to support people with what is becoming a crisis for young people. I am working very closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary to develop those plans further.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Morecambe football club is in crisis. The current owner is delaying a sale, despite us already having a buyer ready and approved by the English Football League. The staff have only been paid one third of their wages, and the board has been dismissed without proper process. Can the Minister outline how the Government are working to prevent other towns like Morecambe from suffering in this way?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend. She has not just raised this issue in the House; she has raised it with me and with the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) as well, and we are determined to support her. I have been through this appalling experience with my own club, Wigan Athletic, and we are determined to make sure that nobody has to go through it ever again. The Under- Secretary of State has been working very hard with Members of this House to pass the Football Governance Bill, to ensure that we rectify this situation and prevent it from happening elsewhere, but in the particular case of my hon. Friend’s club, I am extremely keen to see a sale as soon as possible.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The charity sector includes hospices, such as Acorns children’s hospice in Walsall. Hospices are being hit by the Government’s damaging rise in employer national insurance, which was mentioned in an earlier question. Given that in his opening remarks, the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism praised the Chancellor for his success in securing funding for his Department, will he speak with the Chancellor and urge her to do all she can to reinstate long-term funding for our hospice sector?

Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the events at Glastonbury over the weekend. Members of Parliament will have seen, as I have, the appalling and unacceptable scenes at Glastonbury on Saturday, where chants of “death to the IDF” and “river to the sea” among others were broadcast to the nation.

I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as to whether there has been any criminal offence committed. The House will know that decisions relating to specific cases are an operational matter for the police. Avon and Somerset police has confirmed that video evidence is being assessed by officers to determine whether any offences may have been committed. It just announced in the last few minutes that that is now taking the form of a criminal investigation. As I hope hon. Members will appreciate, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on an ongoing investigation at this stage, but let me be clear that the Government will not tolerate antisemitism, which has no place in our society. It is a poison and a cancer that must be rooted out, and we will be relentless in our work to do so.

The Government work closely with the police and community partners to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities. We will continue to do so following the enormous impact that these events have had on them over the weekend.

Let me turn to the role of the BBC. On Saturday afternoon, just after the broadcast, I called the director general to ask for an explanation and what immediate steps the BBC leadership intended to take. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is essential that the BBC explains how these scenes came to be broadcast.

The BBC has rightly apologised and took the immediate decision not to put this content on iPlayer. I welcome that. However, key outstanding questions remain, including: why the performance was broadcast live given concerns regarding other acts in the weeks preceding the festival; why the feed was not immediately cut when the chants of “death to the IDF” began; and what due diligence was done prior to the decision to broadcast this particular act to the nation. I expect answers to those questions without delay. I have made that view clear to the BBC leadership, and I will update the House as soon as I can.

Over the weekend and this morning, I have also had conversations with members of the Jewish community, including those who were present at Glastonbury. They have raised a number of concerns about imagery and slogans that were on display at the festival over the weekend, which I am told led them to establish their own safe space at the festival. As a Government, we take that incredibly seriously. We are urgently looking into the specifics of those alarming reports and reaching out to the festival organisers.

Finally, I want to be clear about the Government’s role. As a Government, we strongly support freedom of expression, and as Culture Secretary I will robustly defend the independence of our broadcasters and the right to artistic expression, but we do not accept that incitement to violence, hate speech or antisemitism is art. There is a clear difference between speaking out for Palestine, which is the right of everybody in this House and everybody in our country, and antisemitism, which is not and never will be. When the rights and safety of people and communities are at risk and when our national broadcaster fails to uphold its own standards, we will intervene. In the coming days, I will be having further conversations with the BBC and festival organisers to ensure that lessons are learned and action is taken.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, for advance sight of it and for her tone. I have always been a strong advocate for the BBC, which is a cornerstone of British public life with a proud history of cultural contribution. The events of the weekend, however, have made that incredibly difficult. During coverage of the festival, as we have heard, the artist whose real name is Pascal Robinson-Foster led the crowd in a chant of “death to the IDF”, a moment that, extraordinarily, was transmitted by the BBC.

Let me be clear: a national broadcaster funded by licence payers must adhere to the highest standards of impartiality, responsibility, and commitment to social cohesion. I hope we can all agree that in this instance it has failed profoundly. Free speech and political activism are the sign of a healthy democracy—they are essential to it—but when someone crosses the line to incitement to violence, there must be a consequence.

Broadcasting is not a passive act. Every second of broadcast transmitted is an active choice. Airing Robinson-Foster’s hateful rhetoric was not just a lapse in editorial judgment; it was a disgraceful affront to the Jewish community and a violation of the BBC’s own public charter to entertain without undermining the fundamental values of our society. As the Secretary of State said, let us be clear that hateful rhetoric should never be cloaked as artistic expression.

This incident also raises fundamental questions about the BBC’s institutional culture. This is a broadcaster that has time and again given airtime to representatives and supporters of Hamas, while refusing to clearly identify the group as what it is: a terrorist organisation. The BBC has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities.

The BBC’s decision to also broadcast material from Kneecap, a group whose members have openly called for Members of Parliament to be killed, is as indefensible as it is shocking. We have already seen the devastating consequences of political violence in this country, with the loss and tragic murder of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. For the BBC to amplify voices advocating similar violence is grossly irresponsible. Even more troubling is that a leading member of the group is currently facing a terrorism charge. That fact alone should have prompted an immediate editorial intervention. Instead, the BBC gave the group a platform on a publicly funded service.

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the director general, and I am grateful to her for coming to the House to report on that exchange; however, I would like to press her further to ensure that the gravity of this matter is fully recognised. Is she satisfied with the BBC’s explanation that it originally decided that streaming the performance was in line with its editorial guidelines, and has now decided that

“we will look at our guidance around live events so we can be sure teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air.”

Does she think that the BBC’s editorial guidelines were not clear enough, or that the BBC misinterpreted them in the first place, and does she think that that sort of weak response will be of cold comfort to the Jewish community?

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has spoken to the Home Secretary. I wonder whether she could also assess whether the BBC’s actions constituted a breach of section 22 of the Public Order Act 1986. Does she believe that the BBC’s current editorial oversight mechanisms are adequate, specifically across the commercial broadcasting arms like BBC Studios, and does she think that it is still right that the BBC gets to mark its own homework in the first instance before Ofcom gets involved, or is an independent inquiry what is needed? In the light of the repeated failings, will the Government commit to a full review of the BBC’s impartiality and governance standards as part of the royal charter renewal, and can she provide an update to the House on why the charter renewal framework and Green Paper have not yet been published?

I thank the Secretary of State for her work so far. She will have the support of the Opposition, and I welcome her commitment to come back to the House to update us.

[Lisa Nandy]

All those involved in the events of this weekend will hear the very strong feelings on both sides of the House, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I share his view about the importance of the BBC. Those of us who believe in the importance of our national broadcaster are probably more angry than anybody about what has happened over the last few days. It is precisely because we understand the importance of the BBC that we know the BBC has to do better. He asked whether I am satisfied with the explanation that I have had so far. I am not. I have been very clear with the BBC leadership about that, and clear that I expect to get a full explanation immediately, without delay.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of an independent inquiry. I would say to all Members of this House that I am not sure that we need an inquiry to establish that it should have been foreseeable that there would be problems with broadcasts this weekend, that the decision to broadcast live without any delay should have been reviewed, and that the live feed should have been pulled immediately when the chants of “death, death to the IDF” began. What I want to see from the BBC—I know the right hon. Gentleman shares this—is rapid action to ensure that this cannot happen again. I promise to update the House on these developments but I should also say that I am still expecting a response from the BBC about an earlier decision to broadcast a documentary about Gaza, which it was then discovered fell short of the BBC’s own editorial standards. I expect a response swiftly, and I expect action as well.

Finally, can I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Jewish community? Having spoken to friends and colleagues across the Jewish community over the weekend, I cannot describe how much this has impacted on them, particularly those members of the Jewish community who were at Glastonbury. I was extremely distressed to hear that there were organisations that are about to be proscribed by the Government whose logo was emblazoned very visibly on T-shirts and banners. I was concerned to hear reports that there were images associated with Hamas and others, as well as Nazi imagery.

Most people who go to Glastonbury, I think, go for exactly the reasons that I have been in the past, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has as well. It is because music festivals are an incredible way to bring people together, to show support and solidarity, to bind a nation and to showcase great British talent. It is our job, collectively, to ensure that those festivals become again, and remain, a place where everybody in our country is welcome.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as the despicable chants, the monologue that preceded them by the artist in question clearly drew on the influence of Jewish power in music, an age-old antisemitic trope. Could the Secretary of State say a bit more about what conversations she will have with the BBC, not just on what it broadcasts but on what was allowed to happen at Glastonbury? Does she also agree that those age-old antisemitic tropes, whether they are in Parliament, on stage or in public life, should be a red line for all of us?

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes. My hon. Friend has a long history of standing up to antisemitism, including when it stained and sullied our own party, and I am grateful to him for his leadership on this. Those questions about what happens at Glastonbury are not for the BBC. There are serious questions for the BBC about what it broadcast and the decisions that it took, but there are also wider questions about the sorts of things that we want to see in our country.

As the Secretary of State, I have been very clear that it is not for the Government to try to determine what can be seen and what can be heard, but I also have a view about this as an individual: I do not want to see that sort of thing, I do not want to hear it, and I take great exception to it. The Prime Minister was very clear on that point as well. It causes harm to people in the real world, and I have felt that very strongly this weekend. That is why this Government are determined that, wherever we see that form of antisemitism—including the appalling comments that my hon. Friend referenced that were targeted towards an individual in the music industry simply because they were Jewish—we will always stand up to it and not hesitate to take action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

We welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Sadly, rather than devoting our attention today to how this House can push for a just and sustainable resolution to the horrors of the conflict in the middle east, we are talking about something else. On this occasion—there have been past occasions, too—it is the deeply inappropriate language used by a shock jock, attention-seeking musician and a public service broadcaster’s apparent failure to fulfil its responsibility to uphold its own editorial standards. Bob Vylan’s chants at Glastonbury this weekend were absolutely appalling. We can never accept hate-filled chants calling for death to anyone in our society, at a music festival or anywhere else, whatever the subject. It is right that there has been widespread condemnation, including from the organisers of Glastonbury festival, and I associate myself and my party with those words.

Of course the UK must push much harder for a ceasefire; of course we must put pressure on Netanyahu’s Government to roll back their military campaign and build a sustainable two-state solution; and of course Liberal Democrats believe that cultural events must be a place for debate. But there can simply be no place for hate speech, antisemitism and incitement to violence, at Glastonbury or anywhere else. It seems that an editorial failing took place in the BBC’s coverage. The decision to proceed with broadcasting this act is particularly hard to understand given the BBC’s correct decision to take a more cautious, but ultimately fruitless, approach to the broadcasting of Kneecap. A cursory look through the social media of Bob Vylan raises the question, “How exactly was this not foreseen?” Of course, we also know that Kneecap has in the past called for the death of Members of this House.

The failure to use delayed coverage effectively and to remove the coverage in a timely manner is baffling. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether, when she asked the BBC about this issue, the subject of charter renewal was raised? Can she give us concrete reassurance that change will happen and we will never have to put up with this dreadful antisemitism appearing on our screens again?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and the tone in which he made them. It is the responsibility of all of us always to stand up to antisemitism. It is sadly a battle that is never won. The lesson of history is that it falls to every generation to fight antisemitism and fight it again, and certainly I can promise that this Government will always do that.

Let me turn to the specific question about the BBC and charter renewal—with apologies to the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) for not answering his question on this earlier. I have not discussed charter renewal in the context of Kneecap and the other acts broadcast from Glastonbury this weekend. We have, of course, discussed charter renewal, and it is absolutely right to say that editorial standards must be part of that discussion. When we release the terms of reference, which we are due to do shortly, everyone in this House will see a clear commitment to that as part of the ongoing conversation we will have about charter renewal.

Finally, I welcome the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) saying that chants of death must not be made to anyone. Chants of death—to anyone—are not welcome in our society. There was something particularly pernicious about chanting, “Death, death to the IDF”. Many colleagues will know that in Israel, there is a conscription model. Every young person is required to serve in the IDF, which means that chanting “death to the IDF” is equivalent to calling for the death of every single Israeli Jew. That is one of the many reasons why we take this so seriously and why it cannot be argued that this did not cross a very dangerous line.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I share her concern that although freedom of expression must be protected, this incident raises serious concerns about the editorial standards and judgments exercised. As a long-standing supporter of the BBC, I am deeply disappointed in it. What conversations the Secretary of State having with the editorial team to ensure that a serious incident like this can never happen again?

[Lisa Nandy]

As well as speaking to the director general of the BBC on Saturday, a number of officials have been in touch with the BBC’s senior leadership team. We have put to them a series of specific questions that we expect immediate answers on, and we will continue to press hard to ensure that they are forthcoming. I will of course update the House at the earliest opportunity, and I expect to speak to the chairman of the BBC in the coming days.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the Secretary of State for that strong and welcome statement. The BBC editorial guidelines on livestreaming are actually quite clear. They say,

“The level of monitoring should be appropriate for the likely content. A producer should normally be in a position to cut the feed from a live stream if it becomes necessary.”

What explanation has the BBC given for why the livestream was not cut? It cannot be for lack of staff on the ground; the BBC took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend—what were they all doing? For such a vast operation with multi simultaneous live shows going out across various different parts of the site, has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to ask the BBC who has the final say on which bands are deemed suitable for live broadcast and why on earth it chose this one, and who makes the final decision when it becomes necessary to cut a livestream?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Lady asks a series of typically important and relevant questions, some of which I have put to the BBC directly, but I will make sure that I ask it all those questions, with a response expected as soon as possible. She is right to raise the number of staff who were present at Glastonbury festival or working on the broadcast and to ask what they were doing, but this also raises very serious questions at the highest levels of the BBC about operational oversight and the way in which editorial standards are understood and reflected in the decisions of individual staff. I have already had that conversation with the BBC board in relation to a Gaza documentary, but I expect to have it again in the coming weeks.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the BBC and a former employee of the Prospect and Bectu unions, which represent BBC staff. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the BBC’s own statement today, which makes it clear that the performer’s antisemitic sentiments were utterly unacceptable and have no place on our airwaves, and that the BBC will examine its guidance on live events to ensure that teams are clear on when it is acceptable to keep output on air. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is possible to express concern about the appalling suffering in Gaza without using language that risks fuelling hatred and division or inciting violence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As somebody who has been associated with the Palestinian cause for nearly two decades and has consistently spoken out about the Israeli Government’s treatment of people not just in Gaza but in the west bank, I know that it is entirely possible to stand up for the Palestinians and never, ever to stray into antisemitism. Many Members of this House have managed to do precisely that over many years. Nobody is objecting to the comments that said, “free Palestine”. What everybody is objecting to is the comments that were clearly antisemitic, incited hatred and caused real-world harm to people in the Jewish community in our country. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and I support him on that.

For those who say that this is a freedom of speech issue, I say that it is nothing of the kind. This is about standing up against hatred, discrimination and racism in all its forms, but particularly antisemitism, of which we have seen an enormous rise in our country in recent years. Every single one of us needs to be vigilant to make sure that it is never allowed to spread.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

What we saw was an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast on our national broadcaster. Those who chant “kill the IDF” are endorsing those who kill them—and those who kill them are Hamas. It was an endorsement of the terrorism of Hamas, yet the BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast. Therefore, perhaps it is time for the Government to consider cutting the licence fee.

[Lisa Nandy]

This Government’s view of Hamas is clear: they are a terrorist organisation. They are banned in the UK and there is a good reason for that. We will continue to be outspoken about that and robust in relation to them. I was very concerned to hear that there may have been imagery, symbols and graffiti in support of Hamas at the festival this weekend. We will not hesitate to ensure that we deal with and get to the bottom of that in order to stand with our Jewish communities and with everybody in this country who stands against Hamas and is at risk from them.

On the licence fee, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that this Government support the BBC. We believe that it is an important institution. That is why we are so disappointed that this has happened and have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership not just about this, but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues. The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country and that is why it is held to the highest of standards. It is essential that we hold it to the highest of standards as we seek to start the charter renewal process, which should not just safeguard the future of the BBC for the next 10 years but put it on a solid footing for decades to come. These are questions that we, as a Government—collectively with the BBC and all Members of this House—are determined to grip.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her excellent statement. The murder of hundreds of Jews at the Nova music festival in October 2023 sparked this war, and the irony of broadcast antisemitism at Glastonbury here in the UK is not lost on any of us. How are Jews in this country, such as myself, to be reassured about editorial processes at the BBC, and who on earth will be held accountable for this error?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about accountability. That is not lost on me as the Secretary of State, and it is something that I have impressed upon the BBC’s leadership. When there is one editorial failure, it is something that must be gripped; where there are several, it becomes a problem of leadership. I very much take his point about that. He raised a point about the strength of feeling that people have about this issue, given that this was a music festival, and it was at a music festival on 7 October that so many young people lost their lives, with others kidnapped, never to return to their families, and some are still being held hostage. At that moment, it would have been the perfect place to express support, love and solidarity with those who are still suffering. I know there were those at the festival who were doing precisely that, but they were hindered by some of the appalling scenes that we have seen. That is why we are determined to grip this and ensure that music festivals are a safe and inclusive space for everybody. The Government are reaching out to other music festivals, and to Glastonbury, to see what more can be done to express solidarity with those who are still suffering as a consequence of the appalling events of 7 October, and to see what we can do to support those efforts.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement—I agree with practically everything she has said. When I heard these reports, I thought of the Mayor of Wilton, Councillor Alexandra Boyd, who is Jewish, and about what it would have felt like for her to have watched that with her family. We in this place all understand the fine editorial judgments that BBC staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order. When people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, I urge the Secretary of State in her follow-up conversations to ensure that the BBC identifies accountability to individuals. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) set out clearly the guidance that exists. Somebody did not follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they failed to do their job properly.

[Lisa Nandy]

People do expect people to be held to account for the way they do their job, be that on the frontline or at senior levels. That is a point I have made to the BBC, and it will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) said about accountability. It is a point that I will continue to press.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has spoken about responsibility at the BBC, and of those who said those dreadful words. What responsibility do those who were organising the festival have both legally and morally to be held responsible and accountable, and to ensure that this does not happen again?

[Lisa Nandy]

I deliberately included some words about the festival itself in my statement, because I agree with the hon. Lady: we all have a responsibility to uphold the highest standards, and to ensure that people are safe, welcome and included at our shared national events. The reports I have had over the weekend, and this morning, are incredibly alarming, and they suggest that that was not the case this weekend. We are reaching out to festival organisers and investigating those reports, to ensure that this cannot happen again.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Another week, another month, and once again the BBC has got it horribly wrong, in its Glastonbury broadcast, with regard to Hamas and to antisemitism, and once again there has been another grovelling apology. I ask the Secretary of State: how long must this go on before, regrettably, many in the Jewish community and millions of British people conclude that the BBC is institutionally antisemitic?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman’s views about the BBC are very clear, but those of us who support the BBC and believe it is an incredibly important institution will know that it should and does, in some instances, play an important role for all communities to be heard and to feel valued as part of our public life. That is the standard that we expect the BBC to be held to, and this Government will hold it to that standard. We will not hesitate to take the necessary actions to ensure that it rises to meet those standards.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her statement. History tells us that normalising, condoning and tolerating the kind of things that we saw at Glastonbury over the weekend never ends well—it ends extremely badly. As a neighbouring MP, I have written twice to Worthy Farm with my concerns about Kneecap, following reports about one of its members advocating the killing of MPs. There was no reply—and none is expected. Instead, the festival scheduled Bob Vylan, who, as we heard, also advocates killing people—this time Jews. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no good for Glastonbury’s very wealthy organisers to be banging on about their festival being a safe space for everyone while it continues to facilitate operations like that?

[Lisa Nandy]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern about how this was able to happen, and I am sorry to hear that he has had no response to very serious concerns, which were raised in his capacity as a democratically elected Member of Parliament for people in the area who deserve answers. I am happy to follow that up on his behalf, and with him after the statement. I share his view that festivals, and particularly music festivals, must be safe, inclusive and welcoming spaces, and I fear that we fell way short on this occasion. I have visited Glastonbury before and know that it provides an incredible showcase for a lot of up-and-coming British artists, not just those at the top of their game. However, as the organisers rightly acknowledge, a line was crossed at the weekend, and that must not be allowed to happen again.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and the sentiments contained therein, but would she agree that in the run-up to the festival it was clear to many of us, given the track record of some of the participants, that this, or something like it, was going to happen? The Government were aware that something was going to happen, as was the BBC, yet still it happened. Where does the sanction lie, who is going to implement the sanction, and when are we going to know what it is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that much of this was foreseeable; none of us could know precisely who was going to say what, but even a cursory glance at Google would show that this particular artist has a history of provoking extreme statements and behaviour, particularly in relation to events in the middle east. So it would not have been too difficult to foresee that, and there are therefore serious questions to answer about livestreaming, due diligence and other factors. I expect a response from the BBC on those questions and about the action that it will take to ensure that this does not happen again. If those answers are not forthcoming, I have various levers with which I can hold the BBC to account, and I want to be clear with the hon. Gentleman and with the House that I will not hesitate to use them, if I need to do so.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

Had those chants called for the deaths of people of any other nationality or ethnicity, there is no question in my mind that the live feed would have been pulled straightaway. I welcome the Secretary of State’s robust statement, but does she agree that this problem is systemic, and that there has been a decades-long, deep-rooted bias against Israel at the corporation, which seems unwilling to deal with it, or incapable of doing so?

[Lisa Nandy]

I feel the strength of feeling, anger and emotion behind what the hon. Gentleman says. I felt that from the Jewish community over the weekend, and from all of us, including myself, who feel very strongly that this should not have been allowed to happen, and it certainly should not be allowed continually and repeatedly to happen. He asks whether there is in-built bias at the BBC, but I think that what has happened is a serious failing of editorial standards, leadership and oversight, which I need to ensure we address.

The hon. Gentleman said that if the chants had been about any other group, the live feed would probably have been pulled straightaway, but I am not sure that we can say that with any confidence. As the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), made clear, there were hundreds of BBC staff involved in the production, and the BBC was represented at Glastonbury at the most senior levels, yet the feed was not pulled and the standards were not upheld. Regardless of which community it affects, it is my job to ensure that those standards are upheld. I give him my word that I will use every lever at my disposal to ensure that happens.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I wish we lived in a world where there was no chanting of death. Any form of racism is vile, be that Islamophobia, antisemitism or any other kind. The Secretary of State will recall that only last November, Israeli football fans were chanting, “Death to all Arabs” and, perhaps more sickeningly, “There are no schools in Gaza, because there are no children.” That kind of speech and chanting must equally be condemned. What is sad is that although we have had a ministerial statement today, we had no ministerial statement when that chanting happened—it is the hypocrisy that is causing an outrage in the British public. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that is what is happening out there in the community?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I could not disagree more. I and every Member of the House utterly condemn chants of “Death to all Arabs” as disgusting and disgraceful, as a principle by which we hold ourselves—there is no hesitation from anybody in this House to do that. The reason I have brought a statement to the House today is because our national broadcaster, funded by the licence fee that is paid by the public, has broadcast something that is deeply offensive to a community in this country, and that has made many, many people feel unsafe, and may actually have made them unsafe. That is extremely serious and rightly a question for Government, which is why I did not hesitate to bring the statement to the House today. If the BBC had broadcast the chant that the hon. Gentleman described, he would be hearing the same statement from this Dispatch Box and the same response from other hon. Members.

Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that I have stood up for the Palestinian cause in this House for the best part of two decades, especially when it was hard and unpopular. That cost me friends and colleagues, but I stood alongside many Members of the House to highlight the plight of the Palestinian people. So as a long-standing supporter of justice for the Palestinians, I say to him that he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with antisemites.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

A blind man on a horse could see that there were going to be difficulties broadcasting a band called Kneecap, named after a terrorist punishment, who had called for the death of people in this House. We should take a moment to reflect that Airey Neave and Ian Gow were both killed by republican murderers. Given the events of the weekend and previous incidents, is there not a pattern emerging? Will the Secretary of State at least test the idea that the BBC has a fundamental problem with Israel?

[Lisa Nandy]

Let me first recognise that the BBC has been criticised by all sides in the conflict for bias, which shows the difficult editorial line that it has to walk, but let me also be clear that, in relation to what happened at the weekend, as the BBC itself has rightly acknowledged, the coverage, the standards and the enforcement of those standards fell well short of what was expected. I acknowledge that it is not the first time in recent months that that has happened. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take this incredibly seriously. We are having discussions with the BBC at the most senior levels to ensure that this is gripped. As I said previously to other colleagues, I have levers at my disposal and will not hesitate to use them, should I need to.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Anyone who witnessed the disgusting images of young, middle-class, educated morons chanting “Death to the IDF” at the weekend can only be alarmed that we have stooped to this level in our society. Even worse, the state broadcaster broadcast those images across the nation. I welcome what the Secretary of State said, and the way in which she said it. She has called the director and asked for immediate explanations, and expects answers, but given that the BBC has already ignored calls from this House to explain its bias, does she really expect to get any satisfactory answers from an institution that I believe is antisemitic at its very core? Does she have any confidence in any police investigation, given that the police have already decided not to prosecute the member of Kneecap who called for the killing of Tory MPs?

[Lisa Nandy]

In the last few minutes before we came into the Chamber for this statement, the police announced that there is an ongoing criminal investigation, and it is important that we allow the police to do their work. Of course, I would not hesitate to call the director general of the BBC and ask for an explanation. I expect that explanation to be forthcoming and satisfactory, by which I do not mean that I expect excuses about what has or has not been done in this instance. I expect a full and honest explanation of what has clearly gone wrong on this occasion, and a full explanation of what will be done, not through another review, with months and months of delays, or by spending public money on trying to get the bottom of what has gone wrong, but immediately to ensure that this cannot happen again.

[Ayoub Khan]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Towards the end of the Secretary of State’s answer to my question, she said that I did no favours to the Palestinian cause by aligning myself with antisemites. At no stage did I say in my question that I was aligning myself with anyone at the Glastonbury event. Will the Secretary of State clarify what she meant? If she did not mean that, I apologise, but I would like some clarity.

Industrial Strategy: Creative Industries Sector Plan

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

I am delighted to update the House on the publication of the Government’s Creative Industries Sector Plan. This is a central part of our industrial strategy and our plan for change to drive long-term economic growth across the United Kingdom.

The creative industries are a dynamic growth engine for the UK economy. They contributed 2.4 million jobs and £124 billion in gross value added in 2023 and generate knowledge spillovers that drive innovation and activity across the economy, while our creative clusters boost regional economic growth and create high-quality jobs.

This sector generates substantial economic output with strong potential for continued growth over the coming decades. Data, content, and creative services and experiences are the fastest growing areas of consumption, while new technologies, audience behaviours and international competition are transforming business models. Our world-class creative industries are uniquely placed to capitalise on these opportunities and our long-standing international comparative advantage.

This is why today we are publishing our sector plan that sets out how we will support the sector to grow over the next decade. By 2035, our goal is to make the UK the No. 1 destination for creativity and innovation in the world. We will boost the UK’s position as a global creative superpower and deliver new, high-quality jobs and regional growth.

For too long, the sector has not been given the recognition or backing it deserves. Investments have been seen as too risky, talent has been overlooked and policies and programmes have not reflected the ambition in the sector. Today, we are changing this, announcing £380 million in funding for the sector, including more than doubling my Department’s funding for the creative industries over the next spending review period. This includes £200 million for regions outside London and bespoke regional creative clusters to help businesses grow and talent thrive in every part of the UK; £25 million for new “CreaTech” research and development labs; plus screen, music and video games growth packages totalling up to £135 million.

We will champion the unique role of public service media for both growth and democracy. And we will ensure creators, entrepreneurs and innovators are at the heart of our future economy. In doing so, we will ensure the UK is recognised as the best place in the world to make and invest in film and TV, music, performing and visual arts, video games, advertising and beyond.

We are taking action to back our creators and are committed to ensuring they benefit from technological change. That means a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity, builds trust, and opens the door to innovation across the creative sector. We also need to explore other ways to support the creators to license their content. A new creative content exchange, a trusted marketplace for selling, buying, licensing, and enabling permitted access to digitised cultural and creative assets could be part of the solution here.

The Government, working together with industry, is making clear choices to back our regions and back talent everywhere. This is just the beginning of a 10-year journey and our commitment to ensure that we maximise the opportunities and tackle the issues that have long held the sector back from reaching its full potential.

A copy of the “Creative Industries Sector Plan” will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Key Policies

Accelerate Innovation-led growth

UK Research and Innovation will lead efforts to significantly increase public funding for the creative industries, including support for commercialisation and tech adoption.

A £100 million investment in an ambitious next wave of creative clusters to accelerate R&D in new sub-sectors and locations across the UK.

A new creative content exchange as a marketplace for selling, buying, licensing and enabling permitted access to digitised cultural and creative assets.

Growth finance

A significant increase in support from the British Business Bank for the creative industries with debt and equity finance.

A new working group to tackle barriers to IP-backed lending in the creative industries.

An industry-led “single front door” for creative firms to access information on how to unlock private investment, alongside improved Government signposting to resources.

Skilled workforce

Greater flexibility for employers and learners via the new growth and Skills offer, continuing to consider the needs of small businesses.

Deliver a curriculum in England that readies young people for life and work, including in creative subjects and skills, following the independent curriculum and assessment review.

A Government and industry partnership to deliver a refreshed UK-wide £9 million creative careers service.

Trade and export

As committed to at the UK-EU Summit in May, we will support travel and cultural exchange, including the activities of touring artists.

UK Export Finance has up to £80 billion in financing capacity to support UK exports for industrial strategy sectors, including the creative industries.

Increase the number of creative trade missions and markets we target, building on traditional markets like the EU and the United States with fast-growing markets such as Asia-Pacific.

Frontier industries

New £75 million screen, and £30 million video games growth packages over the spending review period to develop and showcase UK screen content and support inward investment.

Up to £10 million per year for a music growth package to support emerging artists, alongside a new industry-led ticket levy on arena gigs to support the grassroots sector.

Co-funding, by Government and private investors including the Walt Disney Company, the Dana and Albert R. Broccoli Foundation and Sky, for the expansion of the National Film and Television School.

Taking action to support public service media, including through BBC Charter Review, to ensure a vibrant domestic screen sector and a BBC that continues to act as an engine of Creative Industries growth across the country.

City regions and clusters

The Government have identified 12 creative clusters across the UK where we will work with local leaders and devolved governments to drive growth.

A new £150 million creative places growth fund devolved to six mayoral strategic authorities to deliver tailored investment readiness support.

Champion London as a “creative industries supercluster”, with the Mayor investing over £10 million over the next four years alongside significant investments including East Bank and Smithfield sites.

[HCWS730]

Government Funding for Sport

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Friday 20th June 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

Sport plays an integral part in our national identity—it brings communities together through physical activity, provides moments of national unity and celebration, and supports growth through investment in our cities, towns and villages. In short, sport and physical activity allow us to showcase the best of our country on a global stage. That is why this Government are committing over £900 million of investment into major sporting events and grassroots facilities over this spending review period, supporting our plan for change.

This funding will provide investment in events that captivate global audiences, strengthen the UK’s position as a world leader in sport, and support our mission to kick-start economic growth by creating jobs, driving regional prosperity and encouraging visitors to the UK. The investment in grassroots facilities will ensure that everyone who wants to participate in sport and physical activity will have the opportunity to be active—ensuring a healthier nation, reducing barriers to opportunity and bringing communities together. It will see more than £500 million committed to supporting the delivery of a host of world-class sporting events being held in the UK over the coming years, including:

The men’s and women’s Tour de France Grand Départ in 2027

The men’s 2028 UEFA European Football Championship—alongside Ireland

The European Athletics Championships 2026 in Birmingham.

These events will deliver significant economic benefits, with Euro 2028 alone projected to generate up to £2.4 billion in socioeconomic value across all parts of the UK.

Work is also continuing with the home nation football associations and devolved Governments to develop the bid for the UK to host the FIFA women’s world cup in 2035.

Alongside this investment in major sporting events, at least £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sport facilities across the UK that support and improve access to better health, active lifestyles, wellbeing and community cohesion. We will prioritise underserved places, working closely with sporting bodies, devolved Government and local leaders to establish what each community needs, and then set out further plans. This will include a stronger focus on removing the barriers for groups such as women and girls, people with disabilities, ethnic minority communities and those in the most deprived neighbourhoods.

This investment will build on the Government funding being delivered this year, which is already helping local clubs and communities build new pitches and changing rooms, and install floodlights, solar panels and goalposts—enabling people of all backgrounds to play a wide range of sports, in communities across every part of the United Kingdom.

This funding demonstrates the Government’s belief in the power of sport—from global events to local facilities—to unite, inspire and improve lives across the country.

[HCWS722]

Media Mergers Legislation

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

This Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape, where citizens are able to access information from a range of sources in order to form opinions. The public’s ability to access a wide range of news, views and information about the world in which we live is central to the health of our democracy.

I am therefore today publishing two separate but related consultation responses concerning important reforms to the media merger regimes to reflect the changing ways in which people are consuming news and which will secure the DCMS Secretary of State’s powers to safeguard plural and thriving British press and broadcasting sectors.

Exceptions to the FSI regime

The purchase of UK news organisations by foreign states runs the risk of eroding trust in the press and in other news media organisations. It is essential that foreign states are not able to control or influence UK news publications and that we have strong measures in place in order to protect UK news publications from undue influence by foreign states.

The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act 2024 amended the Enterprise Act 2002 to create a new foreign state influence regime for UK newspapers and periodical news magazines. As permitted by the Act, the Government now intend to introduce a number of exceptions to the regime via regulations, which are intended to offset potential negative impacts on inward investment into this sector without undermining the core principles of the FSI regime.

The previous Government launched a consultation on targeted and specific exceptions to the regime, which closed on 9 July 2024. We have carefully considered the consultation responses received, including those made by newspaper groups affected by the new regime. In setting out our response to the issues raised during the consultation, we have balanced the need to ensure strong measures are in place, while acknowledging the legitimate concerns raised by respondents. In response to stakeholder feedback, we have decided to set the threshold for state owned investors’ investment to 15% of shares or voting rights in a newspaper or news magazine. This will simplify the regime and provide more flexibility for newspaper groups seeking investment from SOIs where control or influence over the policy of the newspaper is less likely to be a risk.

Our policy intention is to ensure that state owned investment vehicles, where they do invest, could not have influence over the business of a UK newspaper. We want to ensure that the measures brought in through secondary legislation are proportionate, and support routes for legitimate investment and growth while safe- guarding UK newspapers from foreign state influence.

The draft statutory instrument making changes to the FSI regime has been laid in Parliament today.

Extending media merger regimes to include online news and other news media

The Enterprise Act 2002 contains provisions that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in mergers involving print newspaper enterprises and broadcasting enterprises which raise public interest considerations specified in the Act. Grounds for intervention are assessed against these public interest considerations.

DCMS ran a technical consultation between 6 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, on proposals to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online news platforms and periodical news magazines, and to extend the application of the media public interest considerations. These proposals followed advice from Ofcom as part of its 2021 statement on the future of media plurality.

Having taken into account views from industry, Parliament, and the public, the Government have chosen to move forward with the policy and the drafting of the definitions as outlined in the original consultation. We consider that our changes balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive and sustainable media environment. The statutory instruments making changes to extend the media merger regime to online news and other news media will be laid in Parliament shortly.

The exceptions to the FSI regime will apply with retrospective effect from 13 March 2024, to align with the date on which the wider regime came into effect.

The amendments to the definition of newspaper for the FSI regime will also apply retrospectively with effect from today’s date. This will mean that the Secretary of State must intervene in any merger involving an online news enterprise, which completes on or after the date of this announcement, or any anticipated merger which is in progress or in contemplation on or after this date, if she has reasonable grounds to suspect a foreign state has, or may acquire, control or influence over the policy of a UK newspaper enterprise.

[HCWS640]

Youth Funding: 2025-26

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

This Government recognise the transformative role that youth services play in young people’s lives. We know that being part of supportive communities and having access to youth provision can improve a young person’s wellbeing, health and personal development.

On 12 November I announced the winding-down of the National Citizen Service programme and closure of the NCS Trust, and I committed to a co-production of a new national youth strategy. The strategy will allow us to put young people back in charge of their own destiny and provide them with meaningful choices and chances. It will better co-ordinate youth services and move away from one-size-fits-all approaches from central Government, bringing power back to young people and their communities and rebuilding a thriving and sustainable sector. I would like to thank the NCS Trust, including the Youth Advisory Board, for their engagement and commitment to delivering an orderly winding-down of activity, and sharing their learnings to feed into the new national youth strategy.

The new national youth strategy will help deliver on our national missions— spreading opportunities, improving growth, making our streets safer and taking pressure off health services. Since November we have conducted significant engagement activity, reaching young people across the country, to better understand their needs and priorities. This included a national survey, which collected over 14,000 responses, several face-to-face and online focus groups, regional roundtables as well as innovative hacks. We will publish in the coming weeks an interim report, “Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Nation”, which will present those insights.

I previously committed to set out my Department’s 2025-26 funding for youth programmes—an investment of over £145 million—to provide stability to the youth sector and ensure that young people can continue to access opportunities as we transition to the new national youth strategy.

The package of funding for 2025-26 includes:

Over £28 million to increase access to more and better enriching activities, to ensure that young people can continue to access opportunities no matter where they are from. Through these programmes, we will continue to support the fantastic organisations that engage with young people day in, day out.

£7.5 million to increase access to uniformed youth organisations, in areas of unmet demand, to provide young people the chance to access activities, adventures away from home and opportunities to volunteer.

£12 million to boost open-access provision providing youth organisations funding to deliver more youth work and activities across England where young people may be at risk of becoming involved in antisocial behaviour. Working in partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund, we are exploring matched funding options to leverage additional investment.

£4.7 million to increase access to outdoor learning, to help young people foster positive relationships with movement and physical activity and develop their socio-emotional and life skills.

£1.5 million to the Duke of Edinburgh’s award to increase access to the scheme for special educational schools; alternative provision and pupil referral units; and mainstream schools in areas of high deprivation.

Over £2.4 million to give young people a voice on the issues that matter most to them through the UK Youth Parliament; and to improve local places through a new approach to our youth social action funding, working in partnership with the National Lottery Community Fund and the #iwill movement.

Over £3 million to increase sector and workforce capacity to ensure we are recruiting and training the youth workers who are a lifeline for young people.

£8.2 million to improve local youth offers—local authorities play a key part in delivering youth services, reflected in their statutory duty to provide sufficient leisure-time activities and facilities in line with local needs. We know that some areas have faced challenges in meeting this duty, yet they are key to enabling young people to unlock their potential.

£8 million for the local youth transformation pilot, which will support local authorities to build back capability to improve their youth offers and empower young people in every community.

£200,000 peer review programme, to provide local authorities the opportunity to access expert review of their youth offer as part of a model of sector-led improvement.

Over £107 million to further invest in ensuring safe, welcoming, fit-for-purpose youth centres:

£79.4 million (£59.3 million capital and £20.1 million revenue) of re-profiled youth investment fund phase 2 to ensure the successful delivery of projects scheduled for completion in 2025-26. This includes the pipeline of 25 modern methods of construction projects.

£27.8 million (£26 million capital and £1.8 million revenue) for better youth spaces, funding small-scale capital projects, including equipment, small refurbishments and other capital projects, bringing fast-paced benefits to youth organisations and the young people they work with. Support will be targeted in priority areas, with further details to be announced in the summer.

I look forward to the publication of both “Today’s Youth, Tomorrow’s Nation” and the national youth strategy, and I thank every young person, organisation and colleagues across Government for their input to date. Young people’s needs have never been more complex, but together we will drive the transition to a future in which young people have choices and chances and local communities are empowered to support a generation to succeed.

[HCWS635]

BBC's Workplace Culture: Independent Review

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

On Monday the BBC published the outcome of the independent review it commissioned from Change Associates into workplace culture. The review concluded that the BBC does not have a toxic culture. While the review observed that the majority of people working at the BBC enjoy their work and uphold its values, it also said there are still examples of workplace misconduct by a minority, with damaging impacts for the whole BBC. Despite progress having been made in recent years, there remain significant challenges in relation to workplace misconduct that the BBC must address in order to build the trust of those working for the BBC, and the wider public.

The success of the BBC and the wider creative industries depends on the people that work in them—those who drive and shape all of its content and the services it delivers. Safety for all those working in the creative industries, as in any workplace, is of the utmost importance, and this Government consider it a moral imperative for employers to get this right.

BBC staff and the public rightly deserve the highest standards from their national broadcaster. As the report shows, there have been too many examples of a culture of silence in the BBC, with staff feeling unable to raise concerns or reporting that complaints are not dealt with quickly, effectively, or with the necessary transparency and communication about the process. This cannot continue.

Last Friday, I met with the BBC director general to discuss the findings of the review and stressed the importance of the BBC leadership taking action to address the findings at pace. The director general agreed. As the report also highlights, in order for staff and the public to have confidence in the BBC, transparency on BBC processes and progress is critical. I have also asked the BBC to share further information on how it will report on its progress.

The Government welcome that the BBC has publicly accepted the findings and recommendations of the report in full and has set out an action plan to address them with both immediate steps and further measures aimed at driving the long-term change that is clearly needed. Given its central role in the sector, this is now an opportunity for the BBC to show clear leadership and accountability in this area by learning from the findings, acting at pace across the corporation and working to drive change more broadly throughout the creative industries.

Of course workplace misconduct is not confined to the BBC; it is unfortunately an issue that is too prevalent across the sector, and due to the complexity of the creative labour market is not something the BBC can tackle alone. I recently met with the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority to discuss how the Government and industry can work together to improve workplace standards and behaviour in the creative industries. CIISA was established by the industry to create consistently safe and inclusive workplaces, and the Government believe that this is the best vehicle to address these issues. In order for CIISA to succeed, it needs proper buy-in, support and championing from across the sector. The Government are prepared to challenge the sector if this is not forthcoming.

The Government now look to the BBC to act on the recommendations of the workplace culture review in a focused, timely and transparent way. Together with and on behalf of licence fee payers and the wider public, the Government will closely monitor the BBC’s progress. We will also continue to work closely with CIISA and other relevant Government Departments to explore how best to ensure that the issues we have seen are not allowed to be repeated in future.

[HCWS609]

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Today is a day of celebration for football fans in towns, villages and cities across England. Football would be nothing without the fans, and today we put them back at the heart of the game, where they belong. Football is genuinely our national game—it is the beating heart of our communities, a core part of what it means to be British, and one of our greatest exports. English football lights up the world through the premier league, and it lights up lives in every community through the magic that clubs bring, from the biggest in the world to our smallest grassroots clubs. However, while we celebrate the global success of the premier league, there is deep concern at every level of the footballing world about the fragility of the wider foundations of the game, which threatens its global success and the success of the whole game itself.

Since 1992, 60 clubs in the top four divisions have been plunged into administration, and behind that is the stark reality that fans have lived with for too long: that of being just one bad owner away from collapse. In my town of Wigan, we are no strangers to that; in recent years, we have fought two long, lonely battles to save our club. What I saw and learned over those long and difficult months appalled me, with rogue owners, asset-stripping administrators, and fans who were put last when they should have been first. In Reading, Fleetwood, Derby, Morecambe, Macclesfield, Chester and Bury are fans who have lived with a daily drumbeat of anxiety as leagues failed to come to agreement, owners came and went, and the systems set up to protect the fans failed one by one. We promised those fans that we would put an end to that. Today, we make good on that promise by bringing to this House a historic piece of legislation that has been far too long coming and putting fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward this Bill and on strengthening the previous Government’s Bill, particularly when it comes to financial sustainability. Not only are football clubs the beating heart of our communities; they give a lot back to those communities. As a former Hammersmith councillor, she will know that no club is better at doing so than Queens Park Rangers, through the QPR in the Community Trust and its chief executive Andy Evans. They are fantastic, and do wonderful work in some of the poorest communities in the country.

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with my hon. Friend, at least about the Bill—we perhaps differ on what is the best football club in the world. I also commend him on his long support for not just his football club, but his community, in which it plays such an important part.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Before the Secretary of State goes any further in her speech, will she take the opportunity to pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch, whose work in government laid the foundations for what the Secretary of State is talking about now? Since independence should be at the heart of everything we do, will she also say that it would be a pity if this Bill were mired in another story about Labour cronyism?

[Lisa Nandy]

I unreservedly pay tribute to Dame Tracey Crouch. Without her tenacity and determination, we would not have this Bill before the House in such good condition. We owe her a great deal, as does every football fan in the country. It is a source of pride to me that from the Bill’s inception—from the moment the fan-led review began—it has been a cross-party endeavour. I am grateful for the relationships we have been able to forge across the House to get us here.

Let me address head-on the question about the chair of the independent football regulator. David Kogan is by far one of the people in football most qualified to take on this role. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) likes to chunter, but he might want to listen for one moment, though I know it is not his normal mode of operation. Not only is David Kogan negotiating billions of pounds-worth of broadcasting rights, but he has advised the Premier League, the English Football League, UEFA, the National Football League and the Scottish premiership among others. He was also on the list that I inherited from the previous Government, who had headhunted him directly to ask him to apply for the job. Not only that, but top of the list was somebody who had donated over £50,000 to the Conservative party, so I will take no lectures from the Conservatives.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

No, I will not take the intervention, because I think a period of reflection and a bit of humility might be welcome from the Conservatives. They are embarrassing themselves. It is about time they listened and reflected on how this issue is perceived by millions of fans across the country.

We should be ashamed that it has taken so long to get to this Bill. It has been 14 years since parliamentarians first called for urgent change. It has been five years since Bury FC collapsed, sending shockwaves through English football. It has been four years since the European super league forced politicians to end years of violent indifference. It has been three years since the Crouch review called time on a system that has let fans down for two long, and it has been two years since the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) introduced the Bill to Parliament, calling it a landmark moment for fans.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing the Bill to the House. I hope the House will join me in congratulating Bury FC, the Mighty Shakers, for their historic first promotion since the club’s no-fan-fault eviction from the football league. We love a comeback in Bury, and know all too well of the devastating impact when football clubs forgo good ownership and standards. The Government are right to deliver on their promise of an independent football regulator; that promise was a consequence, in no small part, of the trauma we experienced. Will my right hon. Friend support my call for the new regulator’s home to be in Bury?

[Lisa Nandy]

My hon. Friend is a big fan of a comeback himself, as this House knows. I too declare an interest: my stepdad was a lifelong season ticket holder at Gigg Lane. I know that I would be speaking for him, were he still alive, in thanking my hon. Friend for the tireless work he did while the Conservative Government stood by and did absolutely nothing as his club was allowed to collapse. My hon. Friend worked tirelessly with fans in the community, and has been able to throw open the doors of Gigg Lane to fans again, so I am grateful to him for that.

The time for inaction is over. We have known for so long that for English football to prosper, it must be made sustainable. That is what the Bill does. We promised that, and we are doing it. We ask everybody who cares about the future of football to back our fans, our game, and the Bill.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome Bury FC’s revival, not least because Rochdale FC can now beat them in the local derby. On Saturday, I was at Spotland to see Rochdale clinch a play-off place for the national league, thanks to a 5-1 win over Hartlepool FC. Many people there knew it was a super achievement, precisely because a year ago we were threatened with financial collapse. There was a poignant moment at the game when we all remembered the death of Joe Thompson, whom we lost to cancer aged just 36. His work is being carried on by the local cancer charity Team Thompson. That epitomises everything that is great about our game; it is at the heart of the community, and is giving something back, through players like Joe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that people like Joe are everything that is great about our English game? Does she also agree about the need to ensure that smaller clubs see a reverse of the inequity we see in the game nationally?

[Lisa Nandy]

May I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and add my voice to his in paying tribute to Joe? All our thoughts are with his family and the community.

That example shows exactly why this Bill matters. It also shows why, up until today, this has been a genuinely cross-party endeavour, backed by Members in all parts of the House. Against that backdrop, may I take this opportunity to say that this amendment is an absolute embarrassment? With the exception of stronger protections for fans, which the Conservatives supported, this Bill, which the right hon. Member for Daventry is opposing, is the Bill that he introduced. This is the system of light-touch regulation that incentivises football to get its own house in order that only a few weeks ago he was championing. In fact, not only is it light touch and pro-growth, but we got those measures into the Bill—something that the Conservatives failed to do when they were in government. He should be thanking us and welcoming the strengthened provision in the Bill.

This Bill takes a proportionate approach that rejects one-size-fits-all, so that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. The right hon. Member should know that because he presented the Bill to this House, and only a few weeks ago he was busy endorsing it. This is the Bill that every single Conservative Member supported at the election in their manifesto. Promises made, promises broken—we simply cannot trust a single word they say.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State talks about a light touch and proportionality. The general secretary of UEFA wrote to her about the potential consequences of her proposals before Christmas. That letter is relevant to the decisions we have to make today, so will she publish a copy for the House before we vote this evening?

[Lisa Nandy]

They just cannot stop embarrassing themselves. Seriously, the hon. Member was the Whip on the Bill Committee. He knows full well that UEFA has confirmed in writing to me, as the Football Association confirmed directly to Members of both Houses, that the Bill before the House does not breach UEFA statutes. I will say to him gently, as I said to Opposition Members—[Interruption]—the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness might like to learn something—that it is one thing to criticise the Government for something they disagree with; it is another to criticise them for doing exactly the same thing that they did in government.

The hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) will know that the last Government—in which the shadow Secretary of State was the Minister responsible for the Bill—refused to publish any private correspondence, be it from UEFA or otherwise, because they said, rightly, that it remained confidential and was private. However, we have been happy to disclose to the House that there is no problem with the Bill presented as far as UEFA is concerned. I mean, honestly—

[Mike Wood]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

No, the hon. Gentleman is embarrassing himself. Sit down, have a period of humility, and learn what is in this Bill.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

We will hear a number of speeches today, and we have a number of football fans in the Chamber, representing many football clubs across many leagues, so I expect that many of us will not be surprised to hear the chant: “Well, it’s all gone quiet over there!” Is the Secretary of State, like me, surprised at the apparent silence from the Opposition Benches, and at Opposition Members’ seeming reluctance to put fans at the heart of our game?

[Lisa Nandy]

Even though we are talking about the Conservatives, I am absolutely gobsmacked. We are talking about millions of football fans around the country. Certainly in recent years, I have never not been of the opinion that Conservative Members do not think about anyone but themselves, but even on that test, I would have thought that they would see that it was in the interests of the Conservative party to back something that means so much to millions of people in every town, village and city across this country.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I will make some progress, but I will bring the hon. Member in when I can.

Let me remind the right hon. Member for Daventry what he used to think about the Bill. He used to say that a regulator was “substantial but necessary”; that not having one would be “catastrophic”; and that

“Without fans, football clubs are nothing. We would all do well to remember that as we work towards reform to secure a brighter future for football.”

The Conservatives have now worked themselves so far towards reform that they are virtually indistinguishable from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I can only think that he is writing their policy on football.

But seriously, how can the right hon. Member for Daventry look football fans in Hartlepool, Bolton, Portsmouth, Reading, Bury and Luton in the eye and defend this amendment, after making them a promise just two years ago, and again at the general election? [Interruption.] I have the full list. He might as well have it, because he is the only person in this room who does not seem to remember what he has said. I am left wondering whether he did not understand a word of his own Bill, which he introduced to this place just a few years ago and championed at the general election, or whether the sad truth is that the public cannot trust a single word that his party says.

Let me try to help the shadow Minister on what the Bill actually does. First, it introduces a licensing system to require clubs to have a sensible business plan that they stick to. That will include a clear financial plan that properly assesses risk. That is measured and proportionate, and it places requirements on clubs that reflect their circumstances. Let me address the concern that he has just discovered that he has. The Bill will take into account factors such as league, club size and financial health. That will ensure that the regulation is light-touch. We have cemented the proportionate approach that we inherited from him by adding two measures: a financial growth duty, so that the regulator will need to consider the financial growth of English football as part of its secondary duties; and a specific—[Interruption.] He cannot have it both ways. He cannot take credit for this legislation and then try to vote it down. Honestly, I have seen a lot from the Conservatives. I have seen people taking three different positions on two different options in front of them, but what I have not seen for a long time is a shadow Minister who has two different positions on his own view. It is just absurd.

We have also included a regulatory principle in the Bill to clarify that the regulatory regime is light-touch. That will provide clarity and certainty, and prevent any unintended consequences from deterring good owners from investing in our clubs. The Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and I have worked closely with clubs at every level to produce legislation that is clearer for prospective owners than the existing system, and we are confident that this stable environment will drive more investors with a long-term prudent approach into the game.

[Dr Luke Evans]

One of the sticking points in the Bill, and one of the things that has changed, is the approach to parachute payments. One of the Opposition’s concerns is that the Bill will deter investment. We are talking about literally the best league in the world. People from across the world invest with security because of those payments. If the Government take them away, there is a worry that it will deter investment in other leagues. That is exactly what the German league, the French league and the Spanish league are looking for. Will she rectify the issue by putting a provision about those payments in the Bill?

[Lisa Nandy]

The hon. Gentleman raises a decent point, and I will address it head-on. We have no plans to abolish parachute payments, and there is no measure in the Bill that allows us to do so. We also do not take a view on parachute payments; it is for football to determine its view. However, it would be nonsense to exclude parachute payments from the state of the game report, given that this Bill is about the financial sustainability of the whole game. The regulator must be able to take that into account and to use it to inform discussions with clubs in every league across the footballing world. That is the view that we took, but it is also far closer to the spirit, intention and recommendations of Dame Tracey Crouch’s review of football, which was led and informed by thousands of fans across the country. It is the right thing to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lisa Nandy]

I will make some progress, as many Members want to speak. It shows how important this issue is to this House.

Some Members have raised concerns about competition, so let me be crystal clear. Football is an economic powerhouse. The Premier League and its clubs contributed more than £4.2 billion in tax in 2021, supporting more than 90,000 jobs. England leads the world when it comes to football, and the English pyramid is based on competition. That is why the regulator will not intervene in competition matters. Its scope is tightly defined, and I can say to the House with confidence that it will not risk contravening any international statutes. Members will have heard what I said to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire about the view of UEFA, and they will have heard what the FA has confirmed directly to Members of both Houses. In fact, we are so committed to this principle, to protect England’s ability to compete in international matches, that we removed a damaging clause we inherited from the previous Government. It would have required the regulator to

“have regard to the foreign and trade policy objectives of His Majesty’s Government”

when approving takeovers. The system will be better and far more independent as a result.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Given the enormous amount of money that sits with the Premier League, does the Secretary of State share my feeling that it and the FA in general do not do justice by the families of former footballers who suffer from neurodegenerative conditions? Footballers are four or five times more likely to have such conditions than the rest of the population, and those organisations are meant to help families with the care costs of such former professionals, but they do not do so. Will the Secretary of State meet Football Families for Justice so that we can put something in the Bill that will force the wealthy people in football to support those who suffer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Friend for his advocacy. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who has done incredible work in this regard. I am due to meet some of the families shortly.

I will try to make some progress, because many Members want to speak and raise issues about their own clubs and communities. Let me turn to the subject of financial distributions. Our strong preference is for football to be able to reach its own agreement on broadcast revenue distribution, but regrettably, as the House will know, no agreement has been reached since the last deal was struck in 2019. That is why we agree with Dame Tracey Crouch that clubs must have a safeguard in these circumstances, and the Bill proposes a backstop power. It was explicitly designed to incentivise industry to come to its own agreement, and restores the right of the regulator to consider all elements of club finances, including parachute payments. By definition, a backstop is a measure of last resort, and we have strengthened the measures in the Bill to ensure that the regulator will have the power to intervene only as a last resort. We have also made it clear that the regulator will need to publish its “state of the game” report before the backstop can be triggered, so that all parties have a clear and common understanding of the problems that should be addressed before engaging in mediation.

I recognise that the exact process of how the backstop should work has been a matter of serious and considered debate in the other place, with thoughtful suggestions made by Lord Birt, Lord Pannick and others. We are confident that we have proposed an effective mechanism, but we appreciate the constructive and thoughtful debate on this matter. Before the Committee stage, we will consider whether there are sensible ways in which to improve the process and ensure that we present the best possible option to the House.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

May I return the Secretary of State to the Conservatives’ position on parachute payments? I welcome the fact that the Government have not ruled out taking them into account when the regulator does his work. Surely the purpose of the “state of the game” report is to look at the health of the football pyramid as a whole, but before that report is published, the Opposition want to rule out allowing the regulator to take account of parachute payments. As 80% of the help that the Premier League gives the rest of the league is spent on parachute payments, surely that is a nonsense and at least should be considered for the future.

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree very much with what my hon. Friend has said.

Let me deal with the subject of owners’ and directors’ tests. Football clubs are the pride of our towns and cities. New owners bring important investment, but they are also the guardians, the custodians, of clubs that have stood at the centre of our communities and our lives for more than 100 years. Fans grow up attending matches with parents and grandparents; later, they take their own children and grandchildren. These clubs are handed on from one generation to the next. They are institutions that—as the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) once wrote—help to shape and define us as we help to shape and define them, and they are too important to be used as playthings by people who have no stake or care for the community that owns them.

That is why the Bill introduces a fitness test for owners and directors, a source of wealth test for owners, and a requirement for adequate financial plans and resources, also for owners only. Prospective owners and directors will have to pass those tests before buying or joining a club. Incumbents will not automatically be tested, but the power exists, if there is concern about their suitability, to remove them if they are found unsuitable. This approach reduces the regulatory burden, and is targeted proportionately where there is a risk of harm. It will bring peace of mind to clubs, their staff and their fans, who deserve nothing less.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

I suspect that many in this Chamber will be surprised to hear that when I first supported Manchester United, “United will survive” was on the front of the match programme: the club were bankrupt, because the young men who were killed in the Munich air disaster were not insured, and it took a lot of effort to move on. My right hon. Friend is talking about directors and “right and proper” people. I think I speak for every Manchester United fan when I say that if the Bill does not enable the fans to get rid of the Glazers, who are sucking money out of Manchester United to support shopping centres in Florida, it is defective.

[Lisa Nandy]

We have purposefully set a high bar for incumbents, but it is right that the power exists.

Finally, I turn to the most important people: the fans. I said at the outset that the Bill maintains a tightly defined scope focused on financial sustainability and safeguarding heritage, and it will continue to take a light-touch, targeted and proportionate approach, but it is a new season and there is a new manager. Like all good managers, I could not resist making some well-timed substitutions to improve our odds of delivering on our manifesto commitment to make this country the best place in the world to be a football fan, and to deliver a Bill that is match fit. Too many fans have seen their teams’ owners change club badges and colours without any fan input, or have seen their club sell its stadium and up sticks until it is barely recognisable. Too many fans have watched as their clubs have tried to join closed-shop breakaway leagues against their wishes, and too many have seen their club struggle or even collapse under the weight of mismanagement and poor ownership.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Lisa Nandy]

Nobody knows that better than my right hon. Friend, to whom I will happily give way.

[Anneliese Dodds]

My right hon. Friend has been passionate about the beautiful game for many years, and I am delighted that she is ensuring the Bill will be passed and make a difference for fans. One huge problem for fans has been their club getting trapped with an unsuitable, unsustainable and extremely expensive stadium because of goings-on at the club. We have that with Oxford United now. Does she agree that the Bill will help to stop that kind of situation, and that Oxford United must be allowed to move to the Triangle as soon as possible?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am sure my right hon. Friend will continue to fight for Oxford United and all their fans. We have explicitly included provisions in the Bill to ensure that there are protections for fans around club relocation and the sale of stadiums. I know from my own experience at Wigan Athletic that one of the only reasons we still have a club is that the council had a covenant on the land, which prevented the stadium from being sold when we were in administration.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for making a fantastic speech. We should also commend the good owners of football clubs, such as Frank Rothwell and his family, who have made such a difference to Oldham Athletic. He has not just ploughed money into the club, but raised millions of pounds for Alzheimer’s research. May I also associate myself with the comments from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about Football Families for Justice’s efforts to get an independent and comprehensive strategy on dementia for footballers, who are four to five times more likely to suffer from dementia?

[Lisa Nandy]

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

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

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

[Lisa Nandy]

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

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

[Dr Evans]

Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Nandy]

If the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I will make some progress. I think over 50 Members want to speak in this debate, and I want to give them an opportunity to contribute.

We are determined to ensure, through this Bill, that those protections are in place. Clubs will be required to establish that a majority of fans are supportive of changes to club emblems and home shirt colours, and obtain FA approval of any change to a club’s name. For the first time ever, this will set a minimum standard of fan engagement in law. It will introduce financial regulation giving the regulator the power to oversee financial plans and step in where it has concerns. Many clubs are already delivering with and for their fans, but this should be a right of all fans, not just some. This Labour Government are delivering strong and sensible measures that respect the contribution of working people to this country, and our message is clear: if they value it, we will protect it, by putting fans at the heart of the game, where they belong.

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

The Secretary of State has been most generous in giving way. It is reported that Manchester United, Liverpool and others have advertised posts that exclude applications by white men. Will she say on the Floor of the House today that any such policy is illegal in that it infringes the Equality Act 2010, and will she give a clear message that any such policy must be reversed?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am not aware of that—genuinely, this is the first I have heard of it—but I am happy to look into it and come back to the right hon. Member.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am going to proceed, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see, by your nodding your assent, that you would like to do so.

Real change or lasting change never comes from the Government alone; it takes a nation. I thank the fans, the clubs and the leagues, including the English Football League, the Premier League and the National League, for their extensive and constructive engagement; the FA, UEFA and FIFA for their continued support of the Bill; the Football Supporters’ Association, the Professional Footballers’ Association, Kick It Out and clubs across the pyramid for their invaluable perspective and support; and noble Lords for their close scrutiny. I also thank the civil servants in my Department who have worked tirelessly for many years, across two different Governments of different political persuasions, to get us to this point. Most of all, I thank one woman, without whose passion for football and its fans, relentless drive and determination to make good on this long-held promise, we would never have reached this moment—Dame Tracey Crouch.

This effort has united clubs across every league, fans and governing bodies; towns, villages and cities across our country; and, until today, even political parties, in our determination to fulfil our promise to fans. For the Conservatives, this—the amendment—is genuinely a shameful moment, pitting themselves against fans, clubs and the national game. However, for football and its fans, this is a new dawn. Hard-fought-for and long-awaited, it will give our national game and our much-loved clubs the most promising future, and put fans back at the heart of the game, where they belong. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I declare my interest as an Aston Villa season ticket holder and therefore speak as somebody experienced in the highs and lows of football. I refer not to the FA cup semi-final on Saturday but to the moment in 2018 when Villa almost went bust under Dr Tony Xia.

To own a football club is to respect one’s responsibility as a custodian of an important community institution. That is something, despite some of the speeches we have heard, that most owners respect. We cannot debate the Bill without acknowledging the extraordinary success of English football, because the premier league is the greatest show on earth. It is broadcast to 189 different countries, and nearly 2 billion people follow the league weekly. The revenues that football accrues are invested not only in top talent but through the divisions and in grassroots facilities overseen by the excellent Football Foundation. The New Croft in my constituency, for example, is home to Haverhill Rovers, who just became champions of the Thurlow Nunn league first division north, and incredible all-weather pitches that host more than 50 teams of different ages and abilities.

What is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix? The Government say that the new regulator will protect and promote the sustainability of English football. The examples given to justify regulation are Bury and Macclesfield Town among others, but the experience of those clubs shows the power of community and supporter activism. Bury was rescued by a supporters’ group, and Macclesfield by a local businessman. Both are going concerns today.

[Lisa Nandy]

I gently point out that Bury FC were allowed to collapse. They were expelled from the league and they lost their football share. I know acutely from my own family experience that supporters continued to gather at the gates every Saturday because of that drumbeat of a ritual that had meant so much to them and their families. I know that the hon. Gentleman cares deeply about community, so surely he agrees that that can never be allowed to happen again.

[Nick Timothy]

Of course, I agree that Bury was a very sad incident. The right hon. Lady mentioned 60 clubs, I think, that had gone into administration. My point is that I am not aware that any of them collapsed to the extent that they are not going concerns or not participating in league or non-league football. We know from the examples of Bury, Macclesfield and AFC Wimbledon that it is possible for clubs to come back. Supporter activism is not the only solution.

Points of Order

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, about which I have given Mr Speaker prior notice.

All of us in this House know that Mr Speaker has a deep personal commitment to the safety of Members of Parliament and their families. In that context, a video has emerged this weekend of a concert held in London some months ago, at which an Irish republican band, called Kneecap, told a cheering audience that,

“The only good Tory is a dead Tory”.

The band then implored the audience to,

“Kill your local MP”.

I am not a lawyer, but to my mind that is incitement to murder. Quite rightly, counter-terrorism police are now investigating. This is beyond despicable and the issue affects all parties. I say that as I look across the Chamber at the plaque for our fallen comrade, Sir David Amess, and at the one behind me for our fallen comrade, Jo Cox. They both died serving their constituents.

Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask Mr Speaker three things? First, will the Home Secretary come to this House by no later than tomorrow and make a full statement on what the Government understand has happened here and exactly what they intend to do about it to protect all those in public life, not just MPs and their families? Secondly, will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who I see is in her place—I did notify her of my point of order—give a public explanation, ideally via a statement, of how it came to pass that this band were given some £14,000 of British taxpayers’ money in a grant?

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)]

That was your Government!

[Mr Francois]

We do not normally heckle points of order, but, if the right hon. Lady is going to do that, I will say that our party’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), refused the grant. The band appealed, and this Government did not oppose the appeal. Those are the facts. Will the right hon. Lady please explain to us exactly how that happened and how we can get the money back? I did not want to make this issue partisan, but she interrupted me.

Thirdly, I understand that Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury, which, under the circumstances, would be unconscionable. As Mr Speaker is chairing a Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ safety, can we implore him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to write to the organisers of Glastonbury festival and say that this House does not think it is appropriate that Kneecap should be allowed to appear, at least until the investigation is completed? I ask this on behalf of all MPs and all our families. I hope that that is not unreasonable.