Ian Murray

Party affiliation

Parliament's party history for this member: Labour (6 May 2010 – present).

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 438

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. It has been a superb debate. I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on introducing this e-petition debate. It has been a very thoughtful debate, and rightly so, because questions about children, social media and online safety go right to the heart of family life in this country. I have two young girls aged six and one. Although they are not yet at the stage of social media and telephones, the daily fight to get them off screens at that age requires the diplomatic skills of the UN, because screens are everywhere. As parents we probably set the worst examples. Our whole lives are on our phones now, whether we are at work or trying to do family admin. We all live in a digital age where we are more connected than ever before. Being online can bring huge benefits, from making new connections to learning new skills. I pay great tribute to Leo and his colleagues for setting <span id="291WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="291WH"></span>up this petition and getting the issues brought into the public domain, while we highlight the trade-offs that the Government have to make to keep children safe. I want to be absolutely clear from the start that children are at risk of real harm online. Those risks have been present for some time, and successive Governments have failed to regulate to keep children safe online. As the Secretary of State has made clear, our ambition is not simply to make the online world safer, but to enable and empower children and young people to use it safely. That requires an active Government who are prepared to step in when children are being harmed, but also to step in to give children alternative uses for both the online and offline world. We are not starting from scratch. The Online Safety Act introduces one of the most robust systems globally for protecting children from harm online. It is important to state that the Act is not perfect, but everything that we do beyond this builds on the Act. It is one of the most robust pieces of legislation globally to try to protect children from harm. I take on board the criticisms and points made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and other Members about the Ofcom analysis, which showed that over the first nine months it had not seen a major reduction in online harms among children. None the less, we can prove the counterfactual that there has not been a massive increase, so perhaps the Online Safety Act is working to the extent of not increasing the harms. However, we want to get the harms to the lowest possible level. We have to be honest: we will never deal with 100% of harms. What we are trying to do with the Online Safety Act and all the regulations on top of that—the under-16 social media ban, features and functionalities bans, and AI chatbot restrictions—is layer on as much as we possibly can to increase the number of harms we can take out of the system. We will never get to 100%, though, and we have to be honest about that. The Online Safety Act’s child safety duties came into effect in July 2025, requiring platforms to prevent children from encountering pornography, self-harm material and suicide and eating disorders content. Providers must also protect children from other types of harmful content such as violent content and bullying and abusive content. But we always knew we had to do much more. That is why earlier this year we launched the “Growing up in the online world” consultation to hear directly from parents, experts, stakeholders and, more important, young people themselves. The wider public also had to be involved in deciding how we can make the online world safer and more enriching for our young people. The consultation received more than 116,000 responses. Nine in 10 parents who responded told us they support a ban on social media for their children. The analysis showed they were screaming out for help, to go to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith). Although what we heard from young people themselves was more nuanced, two thirds of children who responded to the consultation told us that they would support age restrictions for under-16s on at least some social media. Ofcom’s latest research found that almost three quarters of children aged 11 to 17 had seen or heard potentially harmful content online in a four-week period, including six in 10 who encountered bullying and five in 10 who encountered hate content directly.<span id="292WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="292WH"></span> We believe that social media services create unique risks for children, and while many of them have made welcome changes, they have not gone far or fast enough to keep our children safe. We think that the responsible thing to do is ban social media companies from offering services to children under 16, but it does not stop there. This is not about stopping children from going online altogether; it is about making sure that the services they use are safe and suitable. To make these changes work, companies will be required to use highly effective age assurance that is backed by Ofcom’s robust enforcement powers.

   Hansard source
2. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   That goes to the heart of the problem, because social media is indeed a very loose term. Platforms that might have been out of scope are perhaps being brought into scope by having new functionalities that we might think are different from the social media platforms we are seeking to regulate. For example, Spotify has introduced stranger conversation functionality to its platform. Does that mean that it comes within scope? It depends how social media is defined and whether platforms are morphing into something different. For example, when Facebook was first introduced, it was a service for bringing university students together and letting them communicate with each other. It is now a worldwide content platform where anyone in the world—billions of people—can sign up for an account, interact with each other and upload their own content, which can be served through algorithms; of course, every bit of it is monetised. My hon. Friend is right that technology is moving very quickly, as is the definition of social media, and that is why the regulations have to be flexible enough to deal with some of those harms. I will return to the question of scope shortly. To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, the first regulations will be laid before Parliament before the start of the Christmas recess, with restrictions coming into effect in spring next year. While social media services pose a unique risk, there are, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) said, other services that children can access that have many of the same harmful functions. That is why we are also preventing under-16s from accessing some of the riskier features. They will not be able to livestream themselves or communicate with strangers on a wide range of services, including gaming. We call this the Australia-plus model because we are bringing in gaming, which is not included in the restrictions there. 16 and 17-year-olds will have those protections applied by default. There will be no cliff edge on the adult social media experience: when they hit 16, restrictions will be applied by default when they enter an account until they are 18. We will introduce default protections for 16 and 17-year-olds on persuasive features on social media such as autoplay and personalised feeds to support <span id="293WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="293WH"></span>young people to manage their time online. We will also apply default overnight curfews, including muting push notifications. Many Members have mentioned the other features and functions on social media that are addictive but may not be as harmful as the really extreme harms, such as child sexual exploitation or some of the other stories we hear. There is a spectrum of harms, including the addictive nature of social media, the lack of sleep from using it and the neurological difficulties it is causing in the adolescent brain—that is why social media companies design them that way. In fact, there is a Science and Technology Committee hearing tomorrow morning on the neuroscience of childhood and how social media is affecting children. It is worth looking into these big issues, and that is why we are applying overnight curfews to try to combat the impact on sleep and attention as part of the social media defaults, including muting push notifications. These protections will sit alongside a wider package of measures including stronger safeguards around AI chatbots and measures to promote a more positive and educational experience both online and offline. We want children to enjoy the benefits of the online world but give parents the confidence that they can do that safely. We know that regulation alone is not enough. We must also help children and young people to build media literacy and critical thinking skills to navigate the online world safely and prepare them for an increasingly digital future. I have spent a lot of time in schools in my constituency talking to 11 to 15-year-olds about the social media ban. I think hon. Members are absolutely right to suggest that we do not give young people enough credit for their understanding of dangers online. They understand when there are things online that they should not be seeing. They are very much aware of bullying and of those addictive features, and we do not give them enough credit for being able to navigate this themselves. We are therefore strengthening digital resilience and media literacy through changes in the curriculum and practical support for parents and carers, while helping children and families to access high-quality online content. This is about building on the protections that we already have and going further where children need us to. The Government cannot and will not look the other way. We must move more quickly and decisively to keep people safe online, and nowhere is that responsibility more important than in protecting children from harm. Since I took on my online safety role in the reshuffle, I have spent a lot of time with grieving families. I encourage all Members of this House—Ministers, Cabinet members, Back Benchers and those who are just interested in this issue—to spend some time with the grieving families to hear directly from them how social media has impacted their family life. They have some incredibly difficult stories that are harrowing to hear, but I think all Members should hear them. The test for the Secretary of State and me is that if we get to the end of this process and find that all these regulations would not have saved their children from the harms that led to their deaths, we will have failed their children and failed to protect the children of the future from harm. That is a very high bar, but it is a bar we have to meet, because the social media companies have not. Over years, if not decades, <span id="294WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="294WH"></span>they have consistently turned the other way, and they are starting to take action only because they realise that legislation is coming to restrict accounts for under-16s. Our job as a Government is to build an online world that is safer and more responsible, where platforms take responsibility. If we ask more of the online world, we should also offer more in the real world: stronger communities, better youth provision and more trusted adults around young people. Safety is not just about what we block; it is also about what we build, and we are determined to do that. I will run through some of the interesting and important questions that hon. Members have raised. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who introduced the debate with a tremendous speech, talked about age-gating and the Australian example. What Australia has not done—we have been learning this from Australia—is have highly effective age verification. That is the gateway to making sure that the ban works. Many hon. Members have rightly challenged me, as the Minister responsible, on what that will look like. We are looking at this at the moment. Should it be at the app store level, as the shadow Minister said? Should it be at the device level? Should it be at the level of each individual social media platform? We are working through those issues to see what the most effective option is, but the principle for us is to ask, “What is the most effective system of age verification to ensure that under-16s are protected from social media platforms?” My hon. and learned Friend talked rightly about the risky parts of gaming. We are bringing gaming into our approach, through features and functions. We will pass the under-16s social media ban this side of the new year, and it will come into effect in the spring of next year; we will then bring forward a host of regulations on features and functions, including stranger communications, which is the biggest problem with Roblox and some of the other issues that hon. Members have raised. That will allow gamers to continue to have the functionality of stranger pairing, but without the ability to talk to strangers in a gaming context. That should resolve some of these issues. A lot of the harms are where vulnerable people are taken from the gaming environment to other platforms, in order for grooming and exploitation to continue. That is a commitment of the features and functions part of this, which overlays the social media ban. I will talk a little about isolating young people, because that is always on my mind; I know the Secretary of State thinks about it a lot as well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire, who is the baby of the House—I was hoping to be the baby of this debate, but I have been beaten by probably everybody else in the Chamber—for telling his personal story, which is a very brave thing to do. Isolation is a concern, particularly for vulnerable communities, but from the data and information that we have, we are seeing that the most vulnerable young people are the most susceptible to being involved in these harms. The balance here is about whether we have these spaces where young, vulnerable people can seek that advice or the communities that they wish to be part of and where they can have that enrichment, or whether we protect them. On balance, protecting people is probably the best place to be, while enriching the offer that we can give young people so that they are confident that they can go to safe spaces with safe people they can talk <span id="295WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="295WH"></span>to about their experiences. This is not an easy thing to resolve. If anyone said it was, they would not be telling the truth. Let us talk a little about the way back. Essentially, it all comes down to the scope of the social media ban. What we want to do with the ban, which we announced in June, is capture user-to-user platforms whose purpose is to enable online interaction and which allow users to post material, alongside having an algorithm. The Australian regime includes platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook. We will not be naming platforms directly in the regulations. Ofcom will subsequently apply the regulations to the social media companies and then determine whether it will produce a list of the companies that are in scope. I will explain what Ofcom will do in the regulations and what the thought processes are. Social media companies that think that they are in scope and that have more than a certain number of users will have to self-notify to Ofcom as being in scope of the legislation, and then conform to the regulations. We are working through the detail of how we translate the Australian scope into the UK context, and it is really important to get this right within that. Several hon. Members talked about the regulations, about meeting the criteria and about what the off-ramp is. Essentially, the off-ramp or the way back is for platforms to prove, through their design, that they meet the regulations. It is just a case of reversing the situation. If stranger communication is banned and your online platform is subsequently not to be available to under-16s but you have that functionality, it is quite clear that you do not comply with the regulations, so the way back is to comply with the regulations and fall out of scope. That is an easy thing to say but not an easy thing to deliver, but that is the principle with which we will go forward on this. If there are services like Lego Play or—YouTube has been mentioned—YouTube Kids, are there ways in which you can stop the harms being created by the algorithms, the recommender systems, the commenting systems or the conversations that can be had with strangers? If you have created a service that complies with all the regulations, is it then available to under-16s? I would say that currently the Government’s position is that, yes, there has to be an off-ramp, and the Canada model is something that we are looking at quite closely in terms of its regulations.

   Hansard source
3. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   Mine too, Mrs Hobhouse. It was such an engaging conversation that we were trying to have with each other, so I do apologise.<span id="296WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="296WH"></span> I suppose the simple answer to the question is, “We don’t quite know yet, but probably not.” And this is the answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), in terms of time. When we announced we were going forward with the ban, we had to have a legislative vehicle to put this through. The difficulty with that is this: we took the powers, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, to put the regulations through. That means that we can do it quickly, and that is why we can make the commitment to do it this side of the end of the year. That then means that we have to make a whole body of potential legislation, in statutory instruments, in one go in December, which is not an easy feat if we want to get this right. I think the discussion about what the way back looks like will have to be a future discussion, probably alongside the features and functions part of the debate later on, after spring next year, when this is being implemented. That is not entirely settled yet, but given what we have to try to achieve by December, it is probably the only way to be able to put that in place.

   Hansard source
4. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

   Let me go through the timeline, because it is really important. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act gives us the power to make the regulations. We will make the regulations in December this year. These will come into effect in late spring, and by the time they come into effect, Ofcom will have to have done the work in terms of implementing the regulations, bringing the platforms that are in scope into scope and then starting to enforce what needs to be done. But there will have to be an implementation period after Ofcom has developed the guidance and what must be done on enforcement, so the day from which under-16s will no longer be able to access social media will be in late spring. Between December and late spring, Ofcom will develop the guidance required to implement the regulations. Throughout that process, we will be working on the features and functions, which relate to things like the stranger communications that I have already laid out. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury spoke about her own daughter and about a phone being on her Christmas list. I think the 116,000 responses to the consultation were just parents crying out for the necessary tools. The Labour party conference had many panels on online safety, and the example that was always used was alcohol licensing. Many of us will have a bottle of alcohol in the house; we know that under-18s are not allowed to drink it, but that does not stop some of them doing so. The tools cannot be foolproof, but they give parents the ability to say, “That is harmful to your health. It is harmful to children, and there are laws in place to say you can access that only when you are over the age of 18.” That gives parents the ability to draw a line in the sand, and I think a lot of them are crying out for the tools to help make those decisions. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has put a lot of thought into what is happening on offline activities at the same time. We cannot have a situation in which the online world is restricted for <span id="297WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="297WH"></span>under-16s but there is nothing for the offline world. We have put over £500 million into the Youth Matters fund to refurbish or build 250 new facilities, as well as a £22.5 million investment over three years to support up to 400 schools to provide youth-tailored enrichment schemes. We have made a major investment in the Youth Matters national youth strategy, a 10-year plan to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. I think part of having someone who cares is about the ability to open up to someone who is not a parent, which allows a young person to have some of the difficult conversations that they may have sought to have online. We heard about the nine-point plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who is no longer in her place. She has been right at the forefront in trying to see what a way back looks like and what it needs to be effective. I encourage Members to look at that nine-point plan and see the neuroscience event tomorrow that my hon. Friend will be part of as a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), demonstrated what is in his own inbox, which is probably a demonstration of what all our inboxes looked like around the country following the consultation. He highlighted a number of civil society organisations that have very strong views on this issue, one way or the other: they either support or do not support the ban, or they may reluctantly support a ban because something needs to be done. The challenge that the Government face in developing these regulations can be seen not only from this afternoon’s debate, but from what has been said by all the civil society organisations out there. I pay tribute to them all; many of them, such as the Molly Rose Foundation, have been set up on the back of tragedy and in horrendous circumstances. There is no one solution that they are proposing, and it is therefore the Government’s responsibility to find the best way forward that keeps children safe online and has the maximum benefit. I will finish by mentioning a few more of my hon. Friends who raised some really good questions. We heard about international comparisons and the EU KIDS Act from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We are basing all our evidence on international comparisons. Of course, we have the Australia model, which we talk about a lot, but the Canada model is currently being developed, and there is also the EU KIDS Act, which I was in Brussels talking about just last month. Those international comparisons will certainly affect what we think about, and the Council of Europe is right on this issue. I sat on the Council of Europe many years ago, and it will do a lot of great work in developing both the right of the child and the human right of access and protection from harm, including the protection of children from harm. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), who is a fantastic resource on this issue, and I thank him for how he has been able to help us develop some of these regulations. Being online has huge benefits for young people, such <span id="298WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="298WH"></span>as the ability to learn the guitar, like my hon. Friend—perhaps he should have given us a little song this afternoon to see whether his YouTube tutorials actually worked. We often get questions like that—what will people do if they want to try to learn to play the guitar? Again, I emphasise that we are not banning people from being online, and we are not banning children from being online. Logged-out features can be used. If online platforms such as YouTube want to come forward with a new or redesigned platform that complies with the regulations, and wish to test whether they could be removed from scope, it is up to them to do so. In fact, we have been crying out for platforms to do that for many years. We have ended up in this position because they have not complied or had any intent to comply. They must comply with the regulations that are put in place. I will finish with why we are doing this. I talked about the grieving families. I have a whole folder of their stories in front of me, and the harm is there for all to see. There are extreme cases of child sexual exploitation, children who have had to be taken into safeguarding because of their online experiences, or children who have died. Some of the stories are unpalatable, if we think about our own children; the Government have a responsibility to act. As the Secretary of State said in the House on introducing the under-16 ban, social media companies have not done enough to keep children safe online. The Ofcom analysis shows that they are still not doing enough. The Government have to step in. We do not want to ban people from doing things. We do not want to ban under-16s from being on social media, but that is the only way in which we can protect children from its harms. We are determined to ensure that children have an enriched experience online, and that media literacy and the education system allow them that experience, but also that they have an enriched experience offline. I think the Secretary of State describes it as giving children their childhood back, which is a really good way of putting it. Let the message today to Leo and all the petitioners be a really positive one: we hear their concerns, but we back parents, we believe in young people and we are determined to make the online world work better for them. That is the task we have to do between now and December, and it is the responsibility of not just the Government, but all Members. I re-emphasise what the Secretary of State has set as the benchmark: we have to be able to look those grieving families in the eye and say that we have done all we possibly can to make the online world a safer place, so that other people’s children do not end up like their children did. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved something not just for this generation, but for future generations as well.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Ticket Price Regulation: Live Events

   I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for a very dramatic speech. She went through places where she has seen concerts; I do not know if she, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith), is hankering for her youth, and wishing she could go back there, but it was a tremendous speech, and I think we would agree with every word she said. My hon. Friend mentioned Bon Jovi. I would have been at that concert this evening as they took the stage, had I not been here answering her debate. It had particular relevance for me, because I am not new to this industry; I had my own business when I left university, and the very first thing that I organised was a Scotland-wide tour for a tribute band. Hon. Members will never guess which artist they were a tribute to; they were called Non Jovi. Those tickets were dynamically priced—the price would only ever go down, because nobody ever came to see them. Never mind; that is my hankering after the good old days.<span id="1159" class="column-number" data-column-number="1159"></span> The UK live events sector is, as my hon. Friend said, a jewel in our national crown. From world-class sporting matches to unforgettable concerts—tonight we have heard about many that have not been forgotten—and plays, those events enrich our lives, strengthen community bonds and inspire future generations. Crucially, they provide us with stories that we can tell for years and years. They greatly benefit our economy, generating billions annually, and support a dynamic creative and sporting ecosystem. This Government understand that, and we have put the creative industries front and centre of our modern industrial strategy; we are committing to boosting investment in the sector from £17 billion to £31 billion by 2035. For too long, however, as highlighted by Lord Brennan of Canton’s report following the independent fan-led music review, the joy of attending live events has been marred by unfair practices in the ticketing market, most notably the systematic activities of ticket touts, which we heard about from my hon. Friend. They crowd out fans from the primary market and resell at extortionate prices. Ticket touts—this is a remarkable figure—take £400,000 a day from fans’ pockets; that is nearly £150 million a year. That is money that should be going into the industry. The Government are committed to tackling industrial-scale touting once and for all, improving transparency around pricing practices, and putting money in fans’ pockets. As my hon. Friend has demonstrated, far too often, fans are crowded out of the primary market by touts, who are only interested in making a quick and exorbitant profit at fans’ expense. The Government have been clear: this has to stop. My hon. Friend is correct: as I said in the <em>Daily Record</em>, the touts’ time is up. We want to improve transparency, consumer protection and fans’ access to live events. We also want to make sure that they have a safe and secure means of selling, reselling or transferring their tickets, and to ensure that money flows back into the live events sector and fans’ pockets. That is why we committed in our manifesto and our recently published plan for music to introducing new consumer protections for live event ticket resale, and it is why my Department, alongside the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, undertook a consultation last year on the best ways of tackling this, as well as issuing a call for evidence on pricing practices across the wider sector. We received over 500 responses from right across the live events sector. There were some clear themes for us to address, and those themes have been highlighted this evening. First, genuine fans should be able to recoup the costs of their ticket when no longer able to attend. Enforcement needs to be effective if our measures are to have impact. Secondary platforms need to play their part in ensuring that new rules are implemented and complied with, and that primary and secondary platforms are part of the same ticketing ecosystem. The former could do more to protect their sales and, where appropriate, share information more seamlessly with resale platforms. As a result, we are taking action. Last November, we announced a robust package of measures to tackle exploitative touting, including a resale price cap, a separate service fee cap, limits on the number of tickets that can be resold, and obligations on platforms, all <span id="1160" class="column-number" data-column-number="1160"></span>reinforced by the Competition and Markets Authority’s new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. In the King’s Speech briefing earlier this year, we announced that the Government will publish a draft ticket tout ban Bill in this Session for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, of which my hon. Friend is a member. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and the Committee through that process. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government will introduce the Bill when parliamentary time allows and, as the Secretary of State said in Parliament last week—<em>[Interruption.]</em> We are coming to it. As the Secretary of State said last week, the Prime Minister is particularly passionate about this issue, and we will give the legislation the priority that it deserves and needs. We all want to see this on the statute book as soon as possible.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Ticket Price Regulation: Live Events

   As I replied to my hon. Friend at the Select Committee meeting I attended last week, there were 39 Bills in the first Session of this new Government—39 very important Bills—that took us nearly two years to get through. In this Session, through the King’s Speech, we have of course introduced a number of Bills, and this one is a draft Bill. I can only reassure my hon. Friend and the House that we want to get this done as quickly as possible. That means we need to find the parliamentary time, once the draft Bill has been prepared and is ready, which should be imminently—not too many sleeps left; it depends on how many days we want to sleep for. We will then have a draft Bill that we can take forward, but there is a commitment from my Department and the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to getting this done as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend had her private Member’s Bill, which she is waving around, on this topic in the last parliamentary Session. I share her concern for fans. It is worth noting that her Bill was drafted before the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which imposes new requirements around price transparency, came into effect in April last year. Our legislation will be focused on ending the scourge of touting, thereby improving access to live events. Tackling touting, and ensuring that fans are at the heart of live events, cannot be done by Government alone, of course; industry needs to play its part. It is industry-led action, innovation and best practice, alongside the Government’s new measures, that will truly transform the fan experience. The Government recognise that many ticketing platforms, event organisers and venues have devoted a lot of time, energy and resources to this issue in recent years. We know that significant money has been spent combating ticket fraud, touts and bot <span id="1161" class="column-number" data-column-number="1161"></span>use, as well as educating fans on what to look out for when they are buying tickets online, all to ensure that buying tickets is as safe and seamless for fans as possible. Nevertheless, the strength of feeling from respondents to our consultation and the call for evidence was clear. In fact, they share our strength of feeling about the touting issue. Industry must build on existing guidance to do more to tackle exploitative practices. This is why we strongly welcome the commitment by the Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers—STAR for short—to convene the sector. It will establish new best practice that ensures that pricing information is clear and up front, and that fans are empowered to make informed purchasing decisions, free from undue pressure. This work is already under way; I attended the inaugural meeting in March this year. The work is organised under four headings, to address some of the key issues in the ticketing sector. First, it will look at pricing transparency. Secondly, the industry will look at how the primary market can continue to be healthy. Thirdly, another workstream will look at accessibility issues. Finally, the industry will look at consumer education. Let us have a look at dynamic pricing. We know this is a subject that many people are concerned about. Businesses should feel free to use whatever pricing strategy meets their needs, but they must comply with the law. Where it appears that this is not happening, the CMA has the powers to enforce that and act upon it, and when businesses fall short of what is expected of them under the law, the CMA has powerful enforcement tools to ensure that businesses can be penalised and brought into line. Drip pricing is another one that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is not right when fans are shown a price for a product, only to find that it has increased by <span id="1162" class="column-number" data-column-number="1162"></span>mandatory charges that are added as the transaction proceeds, particularly if they have been waiting all day on a screen to get to the front of the queue to buy tickets. I do not know if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) has sat in his parliamentary office doing that at any point, but it is a real problem. In June this year, the Competition and Markets Authority fined StubHub International close to £900,000 and ordered it to issue refunds exceeding £590,000 to 50,000 fans for using this illegal practice. The CMA is also investigating Viagogo for similar practices. Lastly, on a related point, I continue to encourage the industry to adopt the voluntary £1 ticket levy for live events to support our grassroots music and grassroots music venues. The industry is doing the levy, but is it doing enough? Is a big question mark, and we just keep encouraging it to do as much as it possibly can. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on such an important issue, which affects the dedicated fans who sustain our live events sector. I would like to reassure the House that this Government are tackling industrial-scale ticket touting with urgency and will bring forth the legislation to ensure that fans are not priced out of major cultural and sporting events. That is a priority for this Government, and we will do that. I look forward to returning to this House with the draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, and I welcome further engagement with my hon. Friend, and many other hon. Friends who have a deep interest in this issue, to help tackle ticket touting once and for all. <em>Question put and agreed </em><em>to</em><em>.</em>

   Hansard source
7. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Media Green Paper

   It is great to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan; I think this is the first time I have responded to a debate with you in the Chair, so congratulations. I congratulate the new shadow Minister on what I understand is his first visit to Westminster Hall since his appointment. It has been a good visit. It is great to be having this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing it. He is right to say that an hour is not enough for it, but I am sure we will come back to these issues on a number of occasions. As he knows, we have a Green Paper process to consider the principles behind these big issues, and we then work out the detail by asking people what they think is the best way to deliver things. I know that he is very knowledgeable about these issues and will continue to bring that knowledge and experience to the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Green Paper has some controversial proposals, but I am not sure that they are necessarily controversial. There are big questions that we have to answer in a changing media environment, and they sit alongside a number of other big issues that the Government currently have timetabled, including the BBC charter, which I will come to in a few moments. BBC charter renewal, the Green Paper and other issues of online safety are all coming together in this new environment, with the blurring between what is television and other issues. Let me set the scene for why we are doing this. When they are functioning effectively, we would all agree that our media provide the foundation for a cohesive country and a healthy democracy. They can establish shared understanding, shared facts and shared experiences. That is crucial for helping people to trust and understand one another, and for communities to be held together. However, the media are facing huge challenges. As we set out in the Green Paper, television is undergoing a profound transformation, having moved from the system <span id="335WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="335WH"></span>of limited broadcast channels we had when we were growing up, as the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) suggests, to an environment of having content everywhere for everyone, where the largest players are the global streaming services, video-sharing platforms and social media companies. Our domestic broadcasters, which are the best in the world, including our public service media providers, are battling to be seen in an increasingly competitive and fragmented market in which audiences are seeking their entertainment and news. As we know, people—particularly the young—increasingly access news online, rather than through more regulated spaces such as their TV sets, so there is a disparity: if someone is sitting in front of a piece of content on television, it is regulated, whereas if they watch the same or similar content online, it is not regulated. That is the kind of big issue that the Green Paper is trying to draw out. That weakens the ability of trustworthy news providers to reach audiences and shape and inform public debate. The Government believe that we need to do more to adequately equip younger generations with access to high-quality media. That is why we are acting. In the light of those challenges, for the “Watch this space” Green Paper we consulted on a variety of proposals to ensure that media, and television in particular, can continue to play a vital role in our society and our democracy by making high-quality UK content and trustworthy news accessible and sustainable for the next generation and beyond. I welcome this debate and the many thousands of responses to the consultation that we received—many tens of thousands, I believe—which help us scrutinise every measure properly to ensure it is as robust and forward-looking as possible. Let me come to some of the issues that Members raised. First, the right hon. Member for Maldon raised prominence. Public service media content needs to be easy to find on the platforms on which people watch TV or TV-like content. The Green Paper therefore examines the need for increased discoverability on third-party platforms such as video-sharing platforms. The Government have been very clear that our strong preference remains an industry-led voluntary agreement to achieve that in a sustainable and robust way that satisfies all parties. I pay particular tribute to YouTube for the way in which it has engaged with us. However, should those partnerships not go far enough in delivering our objectives, we will need to consider legislation. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk said that content on YouTube is delivered by the user or by user preference. It is not, really; it is delivered by the algorithm. What is delivered to users is fed to them by whatever the algorithm suggests. If it were purely user-driven, that would deal with prominence, because people would be looking for the stuff that they want to see.

   Hansard source
8. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Media Green Paper

   Absolutely. The international comparisons are not there, because nobody in other regimes has done this before for prominence. If we look at the entire online world, we see that Australia has been the cheerleader for an under-16s social media ban and for functionality changes to social media, but nobody has really looked at the algorithms, how people digest their entertainment and where it comes from, so we would be the first movers. One of the key issues that we have to unpick is that we want a UK solution for UK audiences and users, but west coast American companies dominate the marketplace. That is one of the key things that we are trying to work through with this Green Paper and the big issues that have been raised. I will not go into the various ways of improving discoverability today, but they will be looked at in the coming weeks and months as a result of the Green Paper consultation. We want a thriving public service media sector, which would have massive spill-over effects for the entirety of the rest of the economy. If we crack prominence and get it right on a voluntary basis, we will not need legislation. The right hon. Member for Maldon said that YouTube is all user-generated and not mainstream, so we should not give public service media prominence in it. I am sure he shares that very strong view with others. YouTube may once have been the home of cat videos and other things, but it is changing. In December 2025, YouTube had higher monthly viewing figures than the BBC for the very first time, so people are digesting that content, and I am not quite sure whether those users are aware of the differences between it and television. I know that if I sit my six-year-old daughter down in front of the television, she can watch something that is heavily regulated and safe. I would never sit her down in front of YouTube and just let her watch stuff, for the simple reason that she should probably not be doing that at six—and it is unregulated. I want to talk briefly about the BBC, because it sits alongside the issues of public service media and prominence. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) raised a number of issues about the BBC. We will have a permanent charter. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk raised that issue as well, but the Secretary of State has been very clear that we will have a permanent charter. That is a great outcome for the charter renewal period, I think. On under-75s, we have no plans to change the position. It is now the preserve of the BBC to make those decisions, and it has done so. Under-75s on pension credit do receive a free television licence. I say to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) that the charter review has a very clear commitment to supporting minority language broadcasting, including Welsh and indeed Gaelic, as Members can tell from my accent. We are actively exploring ways to ensure that S4C in particular and minority-language broadcasting continue to be sustainably funded. Of course, one of the key questions for the BBC in relation to renewal is about the issue of sustainable funding, which the White Paper will address.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

   Media Green Paper

   In the interests of time, I will take that as a lobby and will add it to the consultation responses. I want to deal very briefly with two big issues that have been raised a lot. The first is about what trustworthy news is; that is what the Green Paper is trying to address, and we will come back with proposals relatively shortly. I welcome the debate across the Chamber. The second issue is the future of television distribution. I think we all agree that we have dealt with the “if”—we will move from DTT to internet-only television at some point—but we have to deal with the “when”. Is it 2034? Is it 2044? I accept the big arguments around payments and around connectivity, the quality of connectivity and digital inclusion, but none of those should be a reason not to go forward in 2034 if that is what we decide. It should be the beacon that we aim for to deliver on digital inclusion and high-quality broadband in every part of the country and make sure that people are included. As a Government, as a Parliament and as constituency Members of Parliament, we should not just accept that broadband might not be good enough and that therefore we should not make these decisions. We should use it as a key driver to make sure that we can deliver on connecting <span id="338WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="338WH"></span>everyone and on the benefits not just of television, but of everything that comes with being digitally included and digitally connected. We have not made a decision on 2034 or 2044, which is why both dates are in the Green Paper. Other issues have been raised, but in the interests of time I will conclude. No doubt we will come back to this debate. We have the Green Paper and the consultation closed on 31 August, so the next steps are to go through the process of analysing all the responses that many Members and their constituents have inputted. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon for bringing forward this debate; I look forward to his securing further debates on the Green Paper as the process works through.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Sep 2026·Parliament·Ian Murray

    Access to Culture

    Everyone should be able to participate in and enjoy culture wherever they live in the country. Through our arts everywhere programme, we are investing £1.5 billion into arts, culture and heritage across England. In addition, our UK city and town of culture competitions are empowering cities and towns to celebrate their local culture, and we are focusing investment and engagement in our culture priority places to ensure that the benefits of culture can be felt everywhere.

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Edinburgh South

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site