Media Green Paper

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing today’s debate. As always, we agree on virtually everything, so I will not repeat many of the things he said. I am also in broad agreement with the Government’s goals and much of the Green Paper but, like my right hon. Friend, I have two areas of concern.

First, I am concerned about the dynamics and practicalities of the future of television distribution after the switch-off of digital terrestrial television, provided most frequently through Freeview. That will take place in either 2034 or 2044, and it could have a profound impact on remote and rural communities in particular, such as parts of my Droitwich and Evesham constituency. Secondly, I am concerned about the thorny issue of prominence. It is a noble ambition to counter misinformation and to ensure that trustworthy news is more accessible and discoverable, but it raises important questions. What exactly do we mean by trusted? Who decides what qualifies? How will such a system be enforced?

The Government have made it clear that a DTT switch-off is coming, so the question is not simply whether the transition will happen, but how it will protect vulnerable users and those at risk of being digitally excluded, notwithstanding all the positive reasons for the change, which my right hon. Friend outlined some moments ago and which I will not repeat. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) highlighted, in recent times of trouble, including storms and fires, we have seen how vital these services are, particularly when other forms of media, such as broadband and mobiles, may be switched off, and we must consider that security aspect to the debate.

The prominent media trade body Radiocentre has highlighted the potential impact of DTT switch-off on radio transmission costs. Without appropriate financial mitigation, it could put services, local coverage and listener choice at risk. Commercial radio shares much of the same transmission infrastructure as DTT; if there were a switch-off, the costs that are currently shared between television and radio could instead be transferred to radio broadcasters, creating a significant new cost burden from 2035 onwards and potentially increasing transmission costs by more than 50%. That is deeply concerning, particularly in rural communities.

Many rural households still face unreliable broadband infrastructure, while others—particularly elderly households and those on lower incomes—may struggle to afford the internet contracts required to replace free-to-air television. We must not a create a situation where people who have relied on television for decades find themselves unable to access news, entertainment and, importantly, essential public information. The Government must adopt a general rural-proofing approach to this transition, so that no community and no generation is left behind.

On a related point, the effects of that wider shift are already being felt in and around my constituency. The iconic Droitwich transmitting station in Wychbold closed its long-wave services in June this year, and I was disappointed that Historic England could not list the station. Furthermore, there are security aspects to retaining long-wave capacity. It is very difficult to block analogue radio signals—at least, it is much more difficult than blocking their internet equivalent—and long-wave transmissions have shown their usefulness in times of crisis. In a future wartime scenario, the UK might be thankful to have retained the infrastructure required to broadcast to the nation and beyond over distances of hundreds of miles.

We then come to the issue of prominence. The Green Paper proposes new approaches to make trusted news easier to find on social media and to make public service media content more prominent on third-party platforms. The policy objectives are clear and noble but, as always, the devil is in the detail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon said, there are concerns about how that will be executed and about the vital protection of things that we hold dear, such as freedom of speech, the freedom of the press and its ability to hold us to account as politicians. We have to strike the right balance between ensuring that people can access reliable information and protecting the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy. We must be very careful not to drift towards a society in which free speech is constrained, open and honest debate stifled, and the exchange of new ideas discouraged.

The Government must therefore ensure that their definition of “trusted” content does not become a proxy for Government-approved content. There have been, and still are, authoritarian regimes around the world that have adopted such an approach to media regulation. I do not admire such regimes or such strategies. Therefore, although I recognise that a consultation is ongoing, I would appreciate the Minister’s responses on those issues in his reply.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

As I just outlined, it will of course make sense for those funds to be reinvested in local tourism, but that will be a decision for local areas. That is why we are working closely with the Treasury and MHCLG, so that local areas can be empowered to make the decisions that are right for their areas.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the new shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), to their places. May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State and her team for their constructive engagement with me over the last year?

However—there is always a “however” with me —on Tuesday the new Prime Minister committed the Government to bringing in a new holiday tax. On Wednesday, he told the House that he was helping businesses by cutting taxes, yet we all know that business rates and national insurance are increasing, which is destroying over 100,000 jobs in tourism and hospitality alone. In what crazy Labour universe is it possible for the Prime Minister to claim that he is cutting taxes when the Government are actually increasing them and bringing in entirely new taxes?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for all his work as the shadow Secretary of State and as a Minister before that. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to continuing to do so.

Of course, there is more than one tax; we are cutting taxes, but we are also introducing an overnight levy. As I have outlined, we are working across Government, with the tourist sector and with mayors to make sure we get that right for local areas. It of course makes sense for that money to be reinvested in the tourism sector, but that will be up to local areas to decide.

Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I have particularly enjoyed today’s reminiscing about London 2012. I remember Super Saturday very well, because I was watching the beach volleyball, which was just up the road, of course, at Horse Guards Parade. I think that was the third time I went to the beach volleyball—for some reason that attracted me quite a lot—and there were a lot of good events going on. Unlike the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), though, I was very much not a teenager at the time.

I will take this opportunity to reiterate something I said this morning by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State to her role. This is an incredibly broad, fascinating, but also daunting brief—I think anybody who has been involved in DCMS recognises that—but she will enjoy it, and I wish her the very best of luck. If there is any way that I can support her, she will always have my support.

I would also like to thank my former team: my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who is on the Front Bench right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and Lord Parkinson. I also thank the broader team, who did such a good job at supporting me and, most importantly, the sectors.

I can see already that there will be a good working relationship between Opposition and Government. In those areas where party politics is not relevant—that is often the case in DCMS matters—that relationship is important. It is not always seen in the Chamber—it is often seen at events or in the corridors—but it is important that there is that dynamic.

I am not going to lay it on too thick, though. I am not going to say that I will ever vote for the Secretary of State or the Minister, but I think that the most important thing to recognise is that Members can be opponents while also being civil to each other, decent and, quite frankly, nice people. People do not always see that in this place. Politics is politics—there will always be areas of disagreement—but a constructive relationship where a constructive relationship is required is vital for British democracy, and long may that continue. I do empathise with the Minister, by the way. I have been there, so I know about the constant disagreements and challenges when it comes to asking the Treasury for money.

Let me stick to the key theme here of co-operation. I support this Bill. The tone today has obviously been one of general co-operation, for the very reasons that many colleagues have already articulated. The UK, rightfully, has a world-renowned global reputation for doing these kinds of international sporting events not only well but superbly well. We are all committed to delivering international sporting events, and we need even more opportunities to do so, because they do create genuine lasting legacies and inspire the next generation of talent. Sport interest, engagement and participation can have a really positive impact on the nation’s wellbeing by inspiring a more active and healthier nation.

It can also lead the way on inclusivity. Think of the amazing achievements in the integrated Commonwealth games, where able-bodied and para-athlete events are held alongside each other. Britain has a proud reputation for not only investing in para-sport and sponsoring para-athletes but broadcasting it on key channels at peak times—something I will come on to again shortly.

Hosting major international sporting events makes huge economic sense for UK plc, as several Members have mentioned today. When done well, they can be profitable, and the multiplier impact on spend, travel, and hospitality venues such as pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels—of course from both domestic and international visitors—can be absolutely huge. We must remember that inbound visitor spend is export revenue. Every year, over a million people come to the UK primarily to watch a premier league game, generating over a billion pounds for the UK economy. That is export revenue, so this Bill is not trivial.

With Government support, we already have major events secured, including the Euros in 2028 as well as the Fifa women’s world cup in 2035. When I say Government support, it is important to recognise that I mean multiple Governments, because the nature of the extraordinarily long bidding process timelines often meant that not only do the Government have to commit to them but the Opposition have to commit to them as well. Those who are holding the events that we are bidding into often want to see cross-party support, because there could be a different Government by the time of the next event. I am certainly hoping that that will be the case.

[Lisa Nandy]

Never!

[Nigel Huddleston]

Perhaps then we can turn the tables and see Conservatives benefit from Labour’s hard work, rather than the other way around.

[James Naish]

I must say, I think that was the case with the 2012 games, if I am not mistaken, which were won under a Labour Government but delivered under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

The point I wanted to make was about the development of a long-term vision. Certainly in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, we are doing a lot of work on something called the Trent Sports District, which is taking our excellent venues and painting a long-term vision of what they can do for our city and area. That is exactly what he is saying about individual events, so does he agree that using sport as a regeneration and visioning tool is an excellent way to bring everybody together in a cross-party way to secure long-term benefits for an area?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other point he makes is that, when we do these events, it is often one individual city or one particular location that gets a lot of the focus. There seems to be a trend at the moment, which I quite like, of having multiple venues and often multiple countries, even when hosting major international events—we saw that this year with the world cup. We have often bid on a four-nations basis, which can be beneficial, and we will continue to do so. That goes back to the point that the economic benefit can be so considerable that it is great if we can spread it outside the M25. It is important that we do that. I do not want to be negative about London—we have amazing sports venues in London—but we always need to think about London-plus, if London is the anchor.

As the former Sport Minister who oversaw the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I am familiar with, and therefore welcome, many of the framework provisions that go deep into the weeds of event organisation on matters such as ticket sales, unauthorised advertising, brand protection, transport logistics and so on. Previously, they had to be considered in discreet Bills for each and every event, which clearly does not make sense. The basic logic for this Bill is therefore sensible.

Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are some changes that we would like to see, along the lines of what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. In particular, many in the Lords expressed a concern that the definition of “events” used in the Bill initially seemed to cover way too narrow a group. I therefore appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments. Indeed, I remember us having a conversation about the matter at Silverstone and how there is some logic to including many of the important domestic events.

As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that does not necessarily mean everything all the time, but we can pick and choose elements of the Bill. That always causes complexities in such Bills, because it can cause some challenges, so we probably need to build in some flexibility. I am sure that, later on, as we go through the Bill’s stages, we will be able to work that out. There is a clear and strong feeling on behalf of the major domestic sporting events that were mentioned—Wimbledon, the grand prix and so on—that we do right by them and, quite frankly, make it easier for Government in dealing with those things. Again, let us just use a hefty dose of common sense.

There are a couple of other sport-related matters, which I would like to raise, that should be considered in the wider context of the Bill, and I would genuinely appreciate the Minister’s views on those in her closing comments. She will be aware of speculation about allowing alcohol sales at football games. The Conservatives introduced an amendment to the Football Governance Act 2025—I say “the Conservatives”, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is sitting on the Front Bench—for a consultation on lifting the alcohol ban in top-tier football. Unfortunately, despite a lot of agreement cross-party, that amendment was shot down by the then Labour Government. Will the Minister now reconsider that, and is the Bill an appropriate vehicle or opportunity for that consideration? For example, would alcohol sales be restricted at some of the events that we talk about in the Bill? Similarly, are the Government reconsidering the 3 pm blackout rule? That is nothing to do with the Bill, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot.

I also want to touch on something that has been mentioned before, which is the listed events regime. Is that being reviewed, particularly in the context of the events being considered in the Bill? If there is Government support for hosting an event and taxpayers’ money is being put into it, there is a reasonable expectation that attendance and viewing of that event should be maximised in-country to maximise the overall benefit and inspiration that these things can provide. Is this therefore a good time to reconsider the listed events regime, particularly for events supported with taxpayers’ money and held in the home nations?

BBC Sport’s fantastic coverage of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games achieved record-breaking audiences on TV, streaming and online. I was fortunate, as the Ministers were, to attend the Glasgow Commonwealth games this year. The city and the organisers put on a fantastic show, particularly given the circumstances of how the games came about, which I think most people are familiar with. It was a deliberately smaller-scale event than the Birmingham games, and although the coverage on TNT Sports and Channel 5 was good, it did not get the breadth of coverage and therefore achieve the level of awareness in-country that we would have had, for example, had the BBC or another major broadcaster secured those rights. That raises questions about what the BBC is bidding for and how much it is bidding. That is definitely a debate for another day, though an important one.

I will end there by confirming that I broadly support the Bill and I certainly look forward to engaging constructively with Ministers as it goes through its remaining stages. I hope we will see some amendments supported by all parties.

Culture, Media And Sport

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for her work, for her impressive speech and for securing the debate today. I pay tribute to her and all the members of the Select Committee from all parties for conducting the review on community and school sport that forms the basis of today’s debate. I also thank everybody for their contributions today.

This important report has highlighted the concerning reality that England’s community and school sport system is not currently delivering either the opportunities that people want or the benefits that we know sport can provide. All too often, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the sectors it oversees are dismissed as “nice to haves” or a bit fluffy, when in fact they are pivotal—indeed, essential—to our economy and society. DCMS sectors—sport, culture, tourism, film, TV, music, heritage, civil society and much more—enrich our lives and make them more fulfilling, while supporting over 5 million jobs in the UK and generating well over £220DCMS’s total expenditure fell 3.3% from 2023-24. The Government have chosen to abolish the National Citizen Service, to undermine horseracing and legitimate gambling, and to cut spending on tourism promotion, on business events, on listed places of worship and even on school sport, while implementing policies that are loading up costs on DCMS sectors, especially through tax rises. The business rates and national insurance rises are decimating DCMS sectors, depriving tens of thousands of young people of their first job opportunity and causing unemployment. Of the nearly 200,000 job losses since Labour came to power, over half were in tourism and hospitality and many of them involved young people. I respect the Minister, and have a lot of time for her, and many of those things were not her Department’s decisions, and that must be intensely frustrating.

We all understand the benefits of an active population. When children are active from an early age, they develop confidence, resilience and social skills, and are more likely to enjoy better mental health, improved wellbeing and healthier lifestyles. If we fail to give every child the opportunity to be active, we risk storing up significant challenges for the future, from rising obesity and poorer mental health to greater pressure on our NHS. Allowing even more development on sports fields and playgrounds is clearly not going to help.

The evidence is clear that there is strong public demand for sport provision, but as the report highlights, fragmented policy, inadequate investment and poor cross-Government co-ordination are preventing sport from delivering its full potential—whether improving health outcomes, supporting children’s development, strengthening communities or contributing to economic growth. There is also a gender dimension to this issue, as the Chair of the Select Committee outlined and as a recent report by Sky demonstrated. Investment in sport delivers some of the clearest returns of any area of public spending: Sport England estimates that every £1 invested in community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 in social and economic value.

The Government announced in January that they were investing £85 million to build and upgrade grassroots sport facilities across the country as part of a £400 million boost for grassroots sport facilities by 2030. However, the £400 million figure is the same amount that we announced when we were in government, so thanks to inflation, it is a real-terms cut. There is also little detail on who will receive the money and when. Many sports governing bodies, including those for cricket, swimming and tennis, say that they have plenty of projects that are ready to go, but without clarity on funding, they cannot pull the trigger on key projects across the country.

I have particular concerns about school sport, where there has clearly been a bunfight between the Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and DCMS about funding. The Government announced £1 billion for school sport over the next three years, but the devil is in the detail. The Department for Education announced that the £320 million annual PE and sport premium for primary schools will be scrapped in favour of a new partnership network. Let us be clear: that is a cut. In fact, it leaves schools around 22% less well off in terms of annual funding than the current scheme. As the report outlined, we need structural reform, sustained investment, clear accountability and a joined-up national strategy.

The Government have committed to publishing a national plan for physical activity later this year, and we look forward to scrutinising it. Sport and physical activity cannot solve every challenge facing young people, but they can be one of the most powerful tools for improving health, building confidence, developing skills and strengthening communities. Investment matters—of course it does—but we also need a long-term plan and structural reform. The Committee has provided Ministers with a road map; the challenge is whether the Government have the ambition to follow it.

Media Green Paper

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the publication of the media Green Paper.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this urgent question to the House and giving us an opportunity to discuss this important advancement. Yesterday the Government published a Green Paper, “Watch this Space”, to set a new strategic direction for media policy in the UK. The way we consume broadcast media is changing, and television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved away from a system of traditional channels to a far more fragmented system in which people access TV on demand and on video-sharing platforms. Young people, in particular, are far more likely to access media on their phones and tablets through streaming services and platforms, and the Government believe that we are not adequately equipping that generation with access to high-quality media.

There are three key areas where we intend to act. The first is digital prominence, where we are exploring legislative options to require social media platforms and connected TV interfaces to make public service media content, particularly trusted news, highly visible and easy to discover. This is not about promoting Government narratives or only the BBC; it is about ensuring that brilliant journalism from many of our news publishers—both local and national—and broadcasters can get in front of the public. For that reason, we are also opening a conversation about how we define “public service broadcasting” in the modern age.

Secondly, the transition to internet TV is where we are outlining plans for a managed shift away from terrestrial broadcasting to internet-delivered IPTV. We know this is an essential switchover in terms of both access and cost, but we want to ensure that the transition is managed responsibly and that nobody is left behind. We are therefore consulting on two dates for the switchover: 2034, when current licences expire, or 2044, with any date contingent on a full and watertight transition plan.

Finally, we are protecting major sporting events. We will add on-demand and streaming rights for major sporting events such as the world cup and the Olympics to the listed events regime, protecting free universal fan access as viewing habits shift online.

Taken together, these proposals set out a vision for a future TV and media policy in which everyone can access world-leading public service broadcasting content, including children’s and news programming, away from the misinformation and disinformation that has defined too many of our online lives. This Government will ensure that no matter where people access their TV, they are given access to high-quality programming that informs, educates and entertains, and this Green Paper is the next stage of our ambition.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has said, and there is much to be applauded in the media strategy. The overall intent, which is to ensure that everyone has access to trustworthy news and to counter misinformation, is noble. The challenge and its potential danger is how we do that.

Of the positive elements that the Secretary of State mentioned in the strategy, I welcome the Government’s intention to add on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, but there are many controversial aspects. As she said, the plan to close down digital terrestrial transmission by 2034 or 2044 is a major concern, especially for those living in remote or rural areas. The strategy also covers interventions to support media literacy and promoting the questioning of the accuracy of news, but pushing such an onus of responsibility on to the media companies themselves may reduce the responsibility on schools or, indeed, parents. What are her thoughts on that?

We then come to the thorny issue of prominence. The Government are proposing interventions to make trustworthy news providers easily discoverable to counter misinformation, and that includes national and local news publishers and broadcasters, but who decides who is a trustworthy news provider and what trusted content is? Will there be an approved list, or will it be an algorithm or a human being? We need to be careful about descending into some kind of Orwellian society. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to our free society, and the concern of some of the press is that, to qualify for prominence, a newspaper may need to sign up to a state-backed regulator. Can the Secretary of State rule that out?

The proposals in the Green Paper to support our public service broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 are well intended, especially in an age when there is undeniably so much misinformation online, but a requirement for third-party platforms and social media entities to make such broadcasters’ content prominent is problematic for the obvious reason that their content is not always to be trusted and is not always unbiased either, so who decides whether it is? Many people question the BBC’s coverage of politics in general, of trans rights, of Israel and so on. The BBC doctored a video of President Trump, it fails to call Hamas a terrorist organisation, it has pushed highly questionable content through BBC Arabic and it reprimanded a newsreader for saying “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people”. There may be plenty of people who like the idea of legislation to push woke or leftie content online, but I am not one of them, and many people agree with me. Can the Secretary of State provide more details about how trusted content will be defined and who will ultimately be the arbiter?

Finally, can the Secretary of State confirm how extensively she has engaged with the industry to come up with these proposals?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that series of questions, and I will do my best to answer them all as swiftly as I can. First, he rightly talks about the importance of getting the transition right and choosing the date of 2034 or 2044 well. He talks about the particular challenges in remote and rural areas, which this Government recognise. As he knows and as we have discussed before, there are also particular issues for older people, people with disabilities and others. We are working with the industry to put together a watertight plan to help people make that transition and ensure that nobody is left behind. We are asking these questions now precisely to make sure that we are ready and do not leave people behind.

On media literacy, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the onus cannot just be on media companies alone. There is a responsibility on all of us, including schools and those of us in public life, to make sure we are equipping our young people with the skills they need to be able to navigate a completely transformed media landscape from the one we had in this country when he and I were growing up. I want to reassure him that this is not about pushing all the responsibility on to media companies and letting everybody else off the hook. We all have to work together to achieve this. It is not just about young people, either. There are serious challenges with people from every generation seeing information online that is just simply false.

Who defines trustworthy news—who decides what is trustworthy news and how we decide what is trustworthy—is one of the most challenging aspects of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman will know that the definition of public service broadcasting is set out in law, but trustworthy news is a separate matter and that is precisely why we have asked the question.

I would gently push back on some of the narrative that the hon. Gentleman advanced about the BBC. It is still the most trustworthy source of news not just in this country but across the world. On Monday, I was on “Newsround” explaining the consultation and the social media ban that we are introducing to the generation of children who will be most affected by it. It strikes me that there is no other country in the world that has quality programming like that through their public service broadcaster, so I think we should be careful about not trashing the BBC. He and I have shared serious frustrations about some of the specific issues that he mentioned, and we should always demand the highest quality content, but I still firmly believe that the BBC is one of the best broadcasters in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Last year the BBC lost another 300,000 licence fee payers. The BBC’s current scale and financial model is clearly unsustainable. Yesterday the BBC announced controversial cuts, including “The World Tonight” and “Money Box Live”, without anyone in Parliament expressing a view. That is not right. The Government appear to be restricting parliamentary debate about the future of the BBC. They announced the BBC charter via written statement, not a debate. They have already ruled out some alternative funding models and consideration of the size, scope and scale of the BBC’s operations, leaving the BBC to take action unilaterally. Will the Secretary of State reconsider the scope of the charter review, and ensure that Parliament has a proper say on the future of the BBC?

[Lisa Nandy]

I will try to reassure the hon. Member on that, because we have no intention of restricting debate on the future of the BBC. I share some of his concerns about the way in which the BBC made the recent announcement. One of the things that I was keen to ensure was that decisions that could affect the future of the BBC, and the services on which we all rely, were made by the new director general and not in the interim, in the absence of a permanent director general. The charter process sets out a clear role for Parliament, which this Government will respect and uphold. There will be adequate opportunity to debate the proposals that the Government put forward with the White Paper on the future of the BBC later this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s introductory comments and congratulate England and Scotland on a great start to the world cup.

Since coming to power, this Government have cut funding for school sport, listed places of worship, tourism marketing and so much more, yet they have found billions for welfare, Chagos and inflation-busting pay rises for their union mates. Last Sunday, the Secretary of State went on telly to say that she was in discussions about cutting DCMS spending even further. Well, where and when? And who is to blame: is it the Prime Minister, for his weakness and failure to tackle welfare spending, or is it the Chancellor, for her utter economic incompetence?

[Lisa Nandy]

One thing I learned at school was that the answer to a multiple choice question is usually option (c). The hon. Member missed option (c) out, because the real answer to “Who is to blame for the situation this country is in?” is him and his colleagues, because of the appalling mess they made over 14 years of Conservative government. They cut our armed forces to a size that has not been seen for generations, they refused to treat our veterans with respect, they crashed the economy and they left working-class people in every nation and region paying a very heavy price.

We are investing: we have announced the biggest uplift to arts funding, in a single Parliament, in history; we are investing additional resources in young people to turn around the life chances of a generation; and we have invested more than £1 billion in school sport, which the hon. Member’s Government squandered. He should be ashamed of himself—

Glasgow Commonwealth Games 2026

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) on securing the debate. As many Members have said, not only is she a great advocate for the city, but she talks with knowledge and sophistication about the topics under consideration—sport and the broader ecosystem, tourism, and so many other areas.

The Commonwealth games occupy a unique place in our sporting calendar. They bring together nations and territories from across the Commonwealth to compete based on a shared affection and history and, as the hon. Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) mentioned, shared values and principles. This year’s Commonwealth games will be the first held during the reign of His Majesty King Charles III as head of the Commonwealth, and they will demonstrate once again the United Kingdom’s ability to stage world-class sporting events.

The games have a special place in my heart as, back in 2022, I was the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. In fact, four years ago almost to the day, I was running around the country—literally—with the Queen’s baton relay. I know well how much effort goes into organising such an event, particularly if it is taken on at late notice. I was fortunate to work with some truly incredible people, including many civil servants whom the Minister will know, as well as the CEO of the games, Ian Reid, Andy Street, Dame Louise Martin, and an amazing creative team led by the inspirational Martin Green. I know that some of the people I worked with are working on the Glasgow games this year too.

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, the Birmingham games were produced on time and on budget, and they provided a £1.2 billion boost to the economy, with more than 1 million tickets sold. They also had a record audience across channels for the official broadcaster, the BBC—something that others have mentioned and I will come to later. Of course, the Birmingham games were run alongside a trade and tourism programme, and their legacy included not only inspiring a generation of new athletes, but physical infrastructure such as a refurbished Alexander Stadium and a new aquatics centre. As we have heard, the 2014 Glasgow games also had a great legacy, including physical infrastructure, and I know there is a dedicated programme to boost tourism with this year’s games.

For very understandable and deliberate reasons, these games will be on a different scale, in part because Glasgow so generously and bravely stepped up to the plate following the withdrawal of Victoria in Australia as host. We applaud it for doing so, in particular given that the future of the Commonwealth games was in such doubt. The Glasgow games will be funded almost entirely without UK public money, with £100 million from the Commonwealth Games Federation and money generated from ticket sales, broadcasting rights and corporate sponsorships. The games are therefore deliberately and understandably smaller in size and scale than the Birmingham games, which had a budget of more than £700 million, 75% of which was from central Government. Of course, central and devolved Governments will play a role in other areas, including security provision, visa processing and so on.

Many Members will remember, and have mentioned, the great success of the previous Glasgow Commonwealth games in 2014. They are still widely regarded as one of the best games ever staged. Glasgow showcased itself to the world as a welcoming, vibrant and capable host city. We have every confidence that it will do so again next month. We should all be rightly proud that Glasgow 2026 will feature one of the largest, if not the largest, integrated para sport programmes in Commonwealth games history. The United Kingdom has been a global leader in disability sport. That was a passion of mine when I was Sports Minister, as I know it is of the current one.

We recognise the immense value that major sporting events bring to our country. They inspire participation, generate economic activity, attract visitors, and strengthen Britain’s international reputation. From London 2012 to the rugby and cricket world cups, from the women’s Euros to Birmingham 2022, when the Conservatives were in government, Britain built on a global reputation as one of the best places in the world to host sport. I acknowledge that this Government know that major events do not arrive by accident. That is why they are bringing in the major Sporting Events Bill. It takes a lot of planning, investment and, of course, credibility and confidence from international sporting bodies to deliver the games. We will debate that Bill in the near future.

As other Members have mentioned, way too often international attention focuses exclusively on our capital city, yet Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle, Cardiff and Belfast have all clearly demonstrated their ability to host major international sporting events successfully. The legacy of Glasgow 2026 should therefore be more than medals and memories, as I am sure it will be. We also want participation in physical activity to increase, which is where I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

It is important that people have access to facilities and that we invest in sport at all levels. Various announcements have been made by the Government, but too many sports do not know what they will receive from Government and when. The Minister has an opportunity today to give us more insight into sports strategy. We have unfortunately seen funding cuts to grassroots sport and even the recently announced cuts to school sport funding. As the hon. Member for Glasgow West mentioned, all too often, with successive Governments and at different levels, we see that our arts, creative and sports provision is the first to be cut even though they are the things we should invest in most. Investment in sport is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential boost to the economy, our mental and physical health as a nation, and our soft power around the world.

Sadly, for the first time since 1950, the Commonwealth games will not be broadcast live by the BBC. Instead, live coverage will be shown by TNT Sports, with Channel 5 providing free-to-air highlights later. It is disappointing that, despite record-breaking multi-platform viewing figures for the 2022 Birmingham games, the BBC will not show any coverage of this year’s Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which I do not think many people have yet realised. That is yet another example of the deterioration in sports coverage from our national broadcaster.

As the next Commonwealth games are in Scotland, the BBC’s decision is especially pertinent, given that Ofcom recently approved STV’s plans to cut standalone regional news for the north of Scotland. I know that my Scottish colleagues here in Westminster, Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament and others have expressed great disappointment in both those decisions. It raises questions about the role and purpose of our public service broadcasters and of Ofcom. I hope and expect that Channel 5 and TNT Sports will provide high-quality coverage, but the BBC’s decision is disappointing and I would welcome the Minister’s views on that decision, too.

Finally, as we approach the opening ceremony, I want to place on record our thanks to everyone who has made these games possible, and to all those who will generate very special memories for so many people in the coming weeks. We thank the athletes, who have dedicated years to training; the coaches, officials and support staff, who work so hard behind the scenes; the organisers, who have worked tirelessly to bring the games to Glasgow; and the important volunteers, who will once again demonstrate the warmth and hospitality for which Scotland and Glasgow, in particular, is so famous.

We wish every success to Glasgow 2026. I hope that the games inspire a new generation to participate in sport, and that they reinforce the message that the United Kingdom remains the world’s leading sporting nation and one of the world’s premier hosts of major international sporting events.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Tourism and hospitality businesses across the UK are struggling. Once profitable businesses are now letting people go, not hiring or closing altogether as a direct result of Labour’s policies, in particular the national insurance increases. That has led to 100,000 job losses in the UK in hospitality and tourism alone over the last two years. The Government have cut funding to our tourism bodies and are now planning on imposing more regulations and a whole new tourism tax. Can the Minister please explain how on earth less support, more regulations and higher taxes are meant to help the tourism industry?

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his support for the tourism industry. I recognise that it has had significant pressures in recent years, particularly with the pandemic, but I am proud of our tourism industry; it is second to none and delivering in every part of the country. We have put the tourism industry at the centre of our attention with the visitor economy growth strategy. We see it as an area of great potential, and the tourism Minister is working closely with the industry to unlock the benefits for the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

William Hill announced that it is closing 200 betting shops as a result of Labour’s tax policies making them unsustainable. That is Labour’s decisions creating yet more unemployment and undermining sponsorship opportunities and the finances of the horseracing industry overall. Labour may not be as bad as the Greens or Plaid, which I understand want to ban altogether horseracing—a £4 billion industry—and I think greyhound racing, too. Can the Minister assure the racing and gambling communities that the Government will not do any more damage to these sectors, which bring joy to millions of Brits every week?

[Lisa Nandy]

In a rare moment of agreement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the gambling industry brings joy to a lot of people. He and I have discussed the harms that affect a minority of people. They are significant and important, but the industry as a whole brings positive benefits to the United Kingdom. I think he is underplaying the significant pressures on high street businesses that have existed over the last couple of decades—something that, frankly, his Government did absolutely nothing about over the 14 years that they were in government. We are dealing with those.

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 General Committees

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I am very pleased that I can start my speech by saying that I agree with the Minister: the Churches Conservation Trust does indeed play a vital role in the preservation of our heritage, and our religious heritage in particular.

The CCT cares for more than 350 listed churches across England that are no longer used for regular worship, including several in my constituency, and is the custodian of the third largest collection of heritage properties in the country, surpassed only by the National Trust and English Heritage. Together, CCT churches receive as many as 2 million visitors a year. They play a key role in our tourism economy, a point especially pertinent to today’s debate, which takes place during English Tourism Week.

The Churches Conservation Trust keeps these buildings open to the public for free, operating on a far smaller turnover than the National Trust or English Heritage. It not only performs vital restoration and preservation work but, working alongside the local community, often seeks new use opportunities for its churches, which helps to revitalise and rejuvenate those spaces for the benefit of all. Our churches contain some of the country’s best examples of historical art and architecture, from medieval wall paintings to stained glass and stunning monuments. By looking after them for future generations, the CCT also helps to sustain our country’s vital craft and heritage skills.

Government funding, in the form of an annual grant, is vital to the CCT’s work, and the Opposition therefore support the grant being awarded by this statutory instrument. Other funding comes from the Church of England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund, donations, legacies and commercial income, including the innovative idea of “champing”, or church camping—something I am sure you have partaken in, Sir Desmond. The CCT keeps its costs down thanks in no small part to the more than 2,500 volunteers in churches across the country who assist the trust in its work; I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking them all.

Funding from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport represents less than a third of the CCT’s funding, but provides a crucial foundation on which to build and raise other funds. A modest sum of state investment keeps nearly 360 of our most precious historical buildings safe and open for millions of visitors in each English county, and provides a network of valuable community facilities in urban and rural settings alike.

In recent years, the CCT has been given responsibility for looking after many more churches, and its costs have increased significantly due to inflation and the effects of a changing climate. Last month, the Church of England’s General Synod agreed to increase its annual contribution to the CCT in light of those growing challenges. Yet for many years the DCMS grant has been frozen, and this statutory instrument once again provides a flat cash settlement with the same ceiling for the two subsequent years, representing a real-terms cut. Along with the abolition of the listed places of worship VAT scheme, which will cost the CCT more than £300,000 next year, those funding cuts from the state cancel out the rise from the Church.

That situation reflects a broader anxiety among the custodians of our religious heritage. Many current and former places of worship are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register, meaning that without significant intervention they are at risk of being lost to the nation due to neglect, decay or inappropriate development. Yet the Government recently announced the end of the listed places of worship scheme, having halved its budget last year to a maximum of £23 million per year, compared to the £42 million budget when my party was in power.

To the surprise of no one but the Government, last month the fund ran out of money. The replacement scheme is due to start next month, but there is still little detail about how it will work in practice, particularly for historical churches, which now face large tax bills for carrying out essential works to look after these important parts of our shared heritage. The VAT grant scheme gave the custodians of our historical places of worship the certainty they needed to carry out vital works to these public buildings, and it sent a message that these were places that we all valued.

Scrapping the VAT scheme means that people caring for historical churches, including the Churches Conservation Trust—the Government’s own body that was set up to do just that—will now have to pay a 20% tax to repair or maintain a church, while someone demolishing one would pay 0%. That sends a terrible message about what we value as a nation. To give two examples of trust churches in my constituency, investigation work to locate and fix a leak on the roof of St Lawrence’s in Evesham will cost an estimated £12,000, of which £2,000 is VAT. At All Saints in Spetchley, re-roofing the nave and chancel to protect the 700-year-old church with its fabulous medieval paintings will incur a VAT bill in the region of £20,000.

Uncertainty about the Government’s changes has meant that important—indeed, vital—repair work has been delayed or cancelled. The Government announced other changes to heritage support, but again few details have been forthcoming and the high-level information that we have received so far has just given an indication that the VAT reclaim scheme will be replaced with capital grants instead, which has caused considerable anxiety to many stakeholders who fear they will lose out. Can the Minister confirm whether that means fewer sites will receive funding? Will there be winners and losers? If so, who?

We are still in the dark about the eligibility criteria, about timescales, the application process, the Barnett consequentials for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and whether any underspend may be carried forward from one year and so on. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity in his closing remarks to provide some reassurance to those entities, including the CCT, about when more details on the new scheme will be announced. In particular, can he confirm the eligibility criteria for the new places of worship renewal fund? Finally, will he lobby the Treasury to support the Conservatives’ commitment to fully restoring funding for the places of worship scheme up to the levels we had when we were in Government?

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Huddleston Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

As mentioned by the Secretary of State, this week’s BAFTA awards—a great celebration of British creativity—were marred by the unnecessary airing of involuntary comments by Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson. It appears a microphone was placed close to John, and some offensive comments were aired, despite a two-hour delay. This no doubt well-intended attempt at inclusivity has caused great anxiety to John and great offence to many others. Does the Secretary of State agree that the BBC and BAFTA must not only investigate this matter but apologise?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for raising this and to the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who I know has raised her concerns directly with the BBC as well. The shadow Secretary of State heard what I said a moment ago. I think it is fair to say that this Government and I were not satisfied with the initial response from the BBC, and we need to see much swifter action taken in these instances and action that results in this not happening again; I think we are all deeply concerned that there have been too many incidents of this kind.

I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the sensitive way in which he raised this. We all want to make sure that the BAFTAs and all our award ceremonies are inclusive places where people with Tourette’s, who have been shut out of society for too long, can be fully included. The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), met BAFTA this week to talk about how we exercise a better duty of care to all concerned.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. When the Labour Government cut the budget for the listed places of worship scheme, it was suggested that we should not worry because it never runs out of money. Well, it has now run out of money. As the details for a new scheme have not yet been announced, uncertainty is growing, and vital repair work is being postponed or cancelled altogether. Will the Government follow the Conservative lead and commit to fully restoring the budget for the listed places of worship scheme and to releasing information about the new scheme as a matter of urgency?

[Lisa Nandy]

The shadow Secretary of State knows that this is important to this Government. These incredible buildings and places of worship stand at the centre of our communities, and it matters deeply that we preserve and protect them. But he will also know that there were serious challenges with the previous scheme, including the fact that his Government left the economy in such a parlous state that there was no funding available going forward, despite their commitments. We have committed to a new scheme that ensures we can get funding to not just those places that can already raise the money for their own buildings but those places where money is in short supply. We are designing that scheme and will bring forward details of it shortly.