Max Wilkinson
MP for Cheltenham · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word.”
“This summer brings good news in the Big Space Cancer Appeal, which Health Ministers are right behind. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the brilliant doctors behind the appeal, Charles Candish and Sam Guglani, and the many donors who are helping to pay for the £17.5 million new cancer centre at Cheltenham hospital?”
“Cheltenham train passengers have a continual frustration with the turnaround time at Gloucester. There is also a new frustration: I wonder whether the Secretary of State or a Minister can tell me why so many trains due to terminate at Cheltenham unexpectedly terminate at Gloucester?”
“Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament.”
“Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain.”
“Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Max Wilkinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 13.
“The hon. Member is making a compelling case. Does he think that in all cases—in all public bodies, in all quangos—anyone who is a member of a political party, or has ever been canvassing, even in an European election, might be barred from holding any of those kinds of offices? As I understand it, political parties of all colours have in the past appointed people to various public bodies. This is clearly what is being implied by the Conservative amendments.”
“How might the shadow Minister compare the relationship between the IFR and the Government with the relationship between the BBC and the Government, for example?”
“I have a lot of sympathy with the point that the Opposition spokesperson is making, and the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East earlier. The problem is that we know that the Conservative party has, in the past, appointed lots of party members, donors and activists to public bodies. Therefore, although I have some sympathy with the point, I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps on weak ground when making this argument.”
“When I first read the amendment, I assumed that it would apply to somebody who owned a stake in a broadcasting company: a famous podcaster or someone who owned a famous podcasting outlet, for example. I understand why that might be a conflict of interest, but if it is somebody who is commenting on whether a penalty or a refereeing decision was any good, I do not quite understand how that would be a conflict of interest. Perhaps the hon. Member can enlighten me.”
“The hon. Gentleman mentions amendment 116, and proposed new paragraph 7A(b) references the fact that the Opposition would not like the chair of the football regulator to canvass for a political party running for the European Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is suggesting some kind of movement to rejoin the EU, or is he suggesting that a Frenchman, a German or someone else from the European Union might become the regulator? In that case, which parties might he like to rule out or rule in?”
“I am a new Member and I was not here for the previous iteration of the Bill, brought forward by the previous Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether the regulator his Government proposed would have been entirely staffed by volunteers? How it was going to be funded? Was there any kind of levy proposed? Please forgive my ignorance.”
“Price sensitivity is probably an issue for Cheltenham Town fans and the club, and they tell me I should back this legislation, so I do not know why, based on that and having heard the arguments made by the shadow Minister, I should change my mind, because there is nothing to suggest that anything has changed between the previous regulator and the newly proposed regulator. The opinions of the club that I serve are entirely clear.”
“Secondly, one of the first things that my local club, Cheltenham Town, said to me after I was elected, was, “Please support the Football Governance Bill, because that will make our club more sustainable.” Then I spoke to the Robins Trust, of which I am a member, and it said, “Please support the Football Governance Bill.” If the club and the fans are both saying, “Please support the Football Governance Bill,” it is my duty as their local Member of Parliament to take their word for it that they think things will get better as a result of the Bill. Cheltenham Town is a League Two club; sometimes, in a good period, they are in League One, but these are not people who are burdened by the concerns of billions of pounds, as at Manchester United. Ticket prices at Cheltenhm are about £20—I think I might be able to get in for £20 for some games.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I want to make two quick points. First, it seems to me that the previous Government were going to impose extra regulation, and there would have been a regulator that probably would not have been run by volunteers. By the logic we have heard today, the Conservatives previously proposed some kind of increase that they worried would put up ticket prices. I do not agree that that is necessarily going to happen.”
“Someone sets up something or there is an existing business, and the Conservatives might say that that organisation can make decisions for itself. The next amendment is about salaries, and I will probably make the same point. Sometimes we just have to let organisations make their own decisions and let the market decide.”
“We have a fundamental disagreement here on the Bill and the need for regulation. It is clear that the Conservatives have decided that they will now not support the concept of a football regulator. That is a perfectly legitimate political decision. It is also legitimate to point out that that was not their view until a few short weeks ago. It is also legitimate for me to point out that both the club I represent and the fans are telling me that I should support the Bill. I hate to make a point about political ideology, but sometimes I do. This perhaps is one of those instances when we just have to let organisations decide for themselves. My understanding is that traditionally that has been a Conservative thing.”
“The shadow Minister makes a persuasive point, but I still do not understand why it is right for politicians to say, before a regulator has even been set up, “You may have no more than x employees.” I shall end there.”
“The hon. Gentleman mentions ticket prices. Some very simple back-of-a-fag-packet maths tells us that even if the football regulator costs £100 million to run, when we divide that by 92 teams and about 40 games in a season, it comes to a matter of pence per ticket sold: something like 20p, 40p or 50p. I could not even get a Mars bar for 50p in the Tea Room. I do not understand why this argument is being made; it really does not stand up to any kind of challenge. I am not a mathematician or a businessperson, but I can do simple division. I can work out that this body will not cost £100 million, £200 million, £500 million or £1 billion a year to run. It is a fanciful argument and the Opposition should put it to bed.”
“Does the Minister find it strange that, in this room, a Liberal Democrat spokesperson and a Labour Minister are arguing with the Conservatives about letting the market decide someone’s salary?”
“I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 6, page 5, line 14, at end insert— “(d) to ensure that the care and support of those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football is a central part of its approach to football governance, and to establish and supervise the scheme provided for under section [Neurodegenerative care scheme].” This amendment places an objective on the IFR to establish and supervise a scheme to provide care and support to those who have developed neurodegenerative conditions linked to their career in English football (see NC1).”
“Let us face it: the families of Kevin, Ray, Dean, Jeff, Nobby and Chris are around and speaking today, and there will be more families in the future. While it is very unlikely that we will be able to solve the issue with this Bill, it is important that every Member of Parliament with an interest in football takes an interest in this issue. We simply must push to get justice for the families of the footballers we have heard about today, and for those whose family member might suffer the same difficulties in the future.”
“There are also more famous names such as Jeff Astle, Nobby Stiles and, more recently, Dean Windass. They are legends at their clubs and across the country. What has been clearly established is that heading a football does an awful lot of harm over time to the brain of a human being. We accept that this is possibly outside the Bill’s scope, and we also accept the numbers in the room. However, I rise to speak to amendment 1 because it is really important that, as part of these debates on football regulation—when we are talking about billions of pounds sloshing around the football system—we understand that we could do so much with a tiny proportion of that amount to ease the pain and suffering of these footballers’ families.”
“The Portsmouth News has done a wonderful public service for us all by reporting on that. Kevin Moore’s brother Dave, told the Daily Mail that “Kev had great spring and he absolutely loved heading footballs”. Kevin talked about how he would go to the back of Blundell Park in Grimsby with his friends and head the ball, which was apparently on a string tethered behind the stand. He probably gained a lot of aptitude for heading a football by training like that, and it definitely made him more successful at playing the game as a fierce centre-back. However, it clearly had an impact on his health in later life, and he died in a nursing home aged just 55, which is a tragedy. Kevin Moore and Ray Hiron are not the only ones; Chris Nicholl was another Southampton legend with a Grimsby Town link.”
“My first Southampton game at the Dell was in 1993. Southampton lost, predictably, to Manchester United. My grandparents and father took me, and playing at the back that day was a man called Kevin Moore. He was one of the greatest headers of the ball that the Football League has ever seen. He would regularly be seen rising above the level of the crossbar and heading the ball downwards into the goal. He did so in the Zenith Data Systems Cup final—that is a reference for the spotters among us. Kevin Moore is one of a number of footballers whose case has clearly established a link between heading the football and dementia. To balance things up with my friend from Portsmouth over the way, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, there is similar evidence in the case of Portsmouth legend Ray Hiron.”
“I have little more to add, other than to say that I think we should all go away and consider the extremely moving stories told by the footballers’ families. For those of us who saw those footballers during their very best days on the pitch, heading the ball with such vigour, reading those stories brings into sharp contrast what happens to those men after retirement. I therefore suggest that, while the amendment probably will not be agreed by the Committee today, it is important that we keep the discussion going—all of us who have an interest in football—and tell other parliamentarians too.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to not be forgotten today. [ Interruption. ] If we are abolished, perhaps we will all be forgotten. There have been previous positive statements on touring performers, but there was no concrete good news in the UK-EU deal. Touring performers are reliant on this Department to fight their corner, as are the rest of the creative industries, not least on artificial intelligence and copyright, which we are talking about later today. The Minister says he is burying the rumour about the abolition of DCMS, so why do so many people here think it will happen, and why is it being briefed to the press so often?”
“It states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the United Kingdom Declares that a new GP surgery is needed in Cheltenham, as local surgeries have warned that GPs are under strain, working long hours with no breaks, and some residents struggle to secure timely appointments, and to accommodate the growth of the town. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003074]”
“I rise on behalf of petitioners in Cheltenham. Cheltenham is a thriving and growing town, which has many old buildings. That combination of factors provides challenges in the provision of medical services. Some of our existing GP surgeries are searching for improved premises, and with more homes planned in our area, it will be vital to provide new premises to meet additional demand. I present this petition, a replica of which has been signed by 3,412 Cheltenham residents.”
“T4. Residents in Cheltenham remain extremely frustrated about the state of the roads. We have too many potholes and the approach taken to the maintenance of our high street by the previous Conservative county council administration has been substandard. The state of our strand and the threat to our promenade are at the forefront of people’s minds. We have finally had a change of administration, with the Liberal Democrats now in charge of the county council. What can the Secretary of State and Ministers do to reassure me that the Liberal Democrat county council will be given the tools that it needs to fix our roads and maintain our high street properly?”
“It is truly moving to see the change that those services can stimulate in the people who need that. At St Gregory’s Roman Catholic church and among those who attend the Quaker meeting house in Cheltenham, there is a community working very hard to support refugees and asylum seekers. They do not ask for our thanks, but they deserve it in bucketloads.”
“With my daughter, I regularly joined the Highbury congregational church play group, just around the corner from my house, and Little Notes baby music class at St Mark’s. I am particularly thankful for the role that those two churches have played in our family life. I would like to thank the religious groups that support our most vulnerable in my town. At St Michael’s church in Whaddon, the Cornerstone centre plays a vital role in looking after people who need a bit extra to get by, ably supported by the Rev. James White, who is a truly wonderful man. It also hosts community counselling services to help people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. I have seen that work in action when I have visited and the responses of the people who use those services.”
“Before the pandemic, churches and other places of worship were co-ordinating around 35,000 social action projects, including 8,000 food banks, 4,000 parent and toddler groups—more about them later—2,600 breakfast clubs and 2,400 night shelters for homeless people. Around 2.6 million in the UK sought help from churches during the cost of living crisis, the majority for food but a significant number to access a warm space, too. These are extraordinary numbers: they represent not just acts of charity, but the fabric of care that binds our communities together, thanks to the dedication of the religious institutions that continue to serve them. I know this from personal experience. Prior to my election last summer, I was a full-time dad—I think I am the only newly elected MP who was a full-time dad in the lead-up to my election.”
“They are not just architectural landmarks, but vital, living institutions, and it is the people who make them. They are the anchor points of community life, and today, more than ever, they remain places of refuge, service and solidarity. Historically, churches have provided more than spiritual guidance, although that is their primary service. They have funded hospitals, built schools and supported the most vulnerable long before the modern welfare state. They were, and still are, the institutions to which many of us turn first in times of hardship and crisis. Today, their role has evolved. The 40,000 churches across our country offer mental health services, youth clubs, after-school programmes and warm spaces. Churches are responsible for running the majority of food banks in the UK. They often step in where the state has stepped back.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), on securing this important debate. As a Liberal Democrat, I am primarily interested in the fixing of church roofs, as the Leader of the Opposition has so keenly pointed out, so it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. Actually, I take her statement as a compliment, because such work shows an interest in our communities, which is what we have all displayed during the debate. Across the United Kingdom, churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship have long stood at the heart of our communities.”
“That is good news, and we seek confirmation that it will be renewed after that. However, we remain concerned that the new £25,000 cap may limit its effectiveness, and believe that outstanding claims under the previous, uncapped arrangement should be honoured. We are also concerned about the long-term sustainability of these institutions. In the past decade, more than 3,500 churches have closed in the UK. In Scotland, 40% of churches are at risk of closure, and in Wales nearly a quarter have already shut their doors. This is not just about religion, but about community life. We ignore the value of that at our peril.”
“In the centre of my constituency is Cheltenham minster, which is our oldest building at more than 850 years old. It now sits next to one of our newest buildings, the Minster Exchange development, which is a hub for tech and cyber businesses. The fact that Cheltenham’s oldest building sits next to a building at the forefront of modern technology is a testament to the enduring social utility of religious spaces throughout the ages. That is why it should concern us that so many churches—more than 900, as I understand it—are on Historic England’s heritage at risk register. The Church of England’s repair bill of more than £1 billion is a matter of huge concern for the cultural life of our nation. We welcome the Government’s recent decision to extend the listed places of worship grant scheme until 2026.”
“Absolutely—as the parent of a toddler, soft play centres are a vital service that I use. I am sure that all around my hon. Friend’s vast constituency, there are far more soft play centres in the various churches, and I join him in saying thank you. The individuals who volunteer deserve our thanks, although they never ask for it. Churches also act as an economic driver. Anglican cathedrals alone contribute £235 million to local economies and support around 6,000 full-time jobs. The tourists visiting those sites—I almost said Tories, although I sure they like to visit churches, too—spend an extra £128 million per year. The heritage value of the buildings is a testament not only to the faith of Britain but to our enduring cultural history.”
“The hon. Member has criticised the Opposition for the motion but, to give them their due, at least they have turned up. They delivered Brexit, but none of its architects, who would usually be sitting on the Benches behind me, have shown up. Does that not show the contempt in which those Members hold us, and voters as well?”
“One of the things I have appreciated about this Government’s approach is the moderate tone of language that they have taken on really divisive cultural issues, but I am afraid I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister use the phrase “island of strangers” today. We all remember the deleterious effect on public debate after the “citizen of nowhere” speech, and I am concerned that we are going in the same direction. Can the Home Secretary offer me any reassurance?”
“Will he commit to immediately meeting film industry leaders in the UK to co-ordinate a response in this area, and will the Government back our world-leading creatives by doing the right thing on AI and copyright?”
“British film really is the marmalade sandwich in the lunchbox of our creative industries; it has given us Bond, Paddington, Harry Potter and Monty Python. Donald Trump clearly thinks he is a god-like figure, but on the Lib Dem Benches, we are clear that he is not the messiah—he’s a very naughty boy. If he had his way, we would be watching “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Alcatraz”, or perhaps “Harry Potter and the Executive Order of the Phoenix”. Will the Minister confirm that all options will be on the table to protect our film industry, including working with allies such as Canada and Australia, which have shown strength in recent weeks by voting anti-Trump?”
“The press have obviously been briefed by Conservatives that the Conservatives are pushing for a ban on social media for under-16s, but it seems that what is actually being suggested is a review of the digital age of consent with a view to perhaps increasing it to 16. The two positions are very different, and I wonder whether the tough talk in the press matches what is actually being proposed by the Opposition today.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. As ever, he is extremely polite in his presentation and in his dealing with interventions, but I am not sure that he dealt with my intervention, which was basically asking whether the Conservative party position is as it has briefed to the press—that it wishes to ban social media for under-16s—or that it wishes to have a review on raising the age of data consent. It cannot be both.”
“New clause 11 in my name would change that, although I understand that there are technical and legal difficulties. The Minister and the Secretary of State met Ellen and me this morning, along with the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), and we are grateful for the time they gave us. My new clause will not go to a vote today, but we will keep pushing because Ellen and other parents like her should not have to go through this to search for answers when a child has died. I understand that there are provisions in the Bill that will be steps forward, but we will keep pushing and we will hold the Government’s and all future Governments’ feet to the fire until we get a result.”
“The police had no reason to suspect a crime, so they did not see any reason to undertake a full investigation into Jools’ social media. The inquest did not require a thorough analysis of Jools’ online accounts. None of the social media companies would grant Ellen access to Jools’ browsing data, and a court order was needed to access the digital data, which required eye-watering legal fees. The legal system is unequipped to tackle the complexities of social media. In the past, when a loved one died, their family would be able to find such things in their possession—perhaps in children’s diaries, in school books or in cupboards. However, now that so much of our lives are spent online, personal data is kept by the social media giants.”
“As many Members will be aware, my constituent Ellen Roome knows only too well the tragedies that can take place as a result of social media. I am pleased that Ellen joins us in the Gallery to hear this debate in her pursuit of Jools’ law. In 2022, Ellen came home to find her son Jools not breathing. He had tragically lost his life, aged just 14. In the following months, Ellen battled the social media giants—and she is still battling them—to try to access his social media data, as she sought answers about what had happened leading up to his death. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for raising this in his speech. In her search for answers, Ellen found herself blocked by social media giants that placed process ahead of compassion.”
“That is a positive sign, and I think that in all parts of this House we have developed a consensus on where things need to move—but creatives remain uneasy about the implications for their work and are awaiting firm action. Ministers may wish to tackle this issue with future action, and I understand that it might not be dealt with today, but our amendments would enable that to happen. They also have an opportunity today: nothing would send a stronger signal than Government support and support from Members from across the House for my hon. Friend’s amendments, and I implore all Members to back them.”
“I trust that Ministers are listening, and I know that they have been listening over the many debates we have had on this issue. If they were to remove those protections, they would tip the scales in favour of AI companies at the cost of the creative industry. When we ask AI companies and people in tech where the jobs are going to come from, the answers are just not there. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) would reinstate copyright protections at all levels of AI development and reinforce the law as it currently stands. It is only fair that when creative work is used for AI development, the creator is properly compensated. The Government have made positive noises on this issue in multiple debates over the last few months.”
“I will now turn to the issue of copyright protections. I held a roundtable with creatives in Cheltenham, which is home to many tech businesses and AI companies. The creative industries in my town are also extremely strong, and I hear a lot of concern about the need to protect copyright for our creators. The industry, is worth £124 billion or more every year, remains concerned about the Government’s approach. The effects of these issues on our culture should not be understated. We would be far poorer both culturally and financially if our creatives were unable to make a living from their artistic talents. I believe there is still a risk of the creative industry being undermined if the Government remove protections to the benefit of AI developers.”
“I thank the Minister for his intervention. He is absolutely right. There are clear issues of process here. There are differential approaches across the country—different coroners taking different approaches and different police forces taking different approaches. The words of Ministers have weight and I hope that coroners and police forces are taking note of what needs to happen in the future so that there are proper investigations into the deaths of children who may have suffered misadventure as a result of social media. On related matters, new clause 1 would gain the support of parents like Ellen up and down this country. We need to move further and faster on this issue of social media and online safety—as this Government promised on various other things—and I am pleased that my party has a very clear position on it.”
“I will try a third time, because we tried earlier. The Conservatives have clearly briefed the press that they are angling for a ban on social media for under-16s—it has been reported in multiple places. Can the shadow Minister confirm whether that is the Conservatives’ position or not?”
“If footage in this House is allowed to be digitally manipulated for political ends in the name of Members of this House, that puts at risk the proceedings in this House and, I believe, puts at risk democracy. I have raised this point of order to put the facts on the public record so that my constituents and everyone else know what actually happened, and to seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I should do.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday, I was sitting behind the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). I made some comments, and I learned the lesson that the microphones in this place are very good and pick up comments made by those sitting directly behind hon. Members. The comments that I made related to the second earnings of the hon. Member for Clacton, declared in his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. A Reform UK social media account digitally manipulated those comments to give the appearance that I had described the hon. Member using a four-letter expletive. This is misinformation. It is fake news. It is Trumpian tactics. It was reported to Elon Musk’s X; no response was received.”
“As a Liberal and an internationalist, I believe that we must be proud of them. It is only right that, today and this week, we recognise the contribution of our Commonwealth soldiers. Beyond the parades and ceremonies, we must embed this fuller history into our national consciousness, because remembrance without inclusion is incomplete.”
“That gratitude to all those who have served must be expressed not just in words, but in action: action to defend our democracy; and action to defend the British values of liberty, tolerance and respect for the rule of law. Respecting our veterans means looking after them properly after their service is over—looking after their mental health, their housing, and their right to compensation. This anniversary is not only about how we treat veterans, but about how we tell the story of the war and whose voices we include. The role of Commonwealth forces in securing victory is also often overlooked. Some 2.5 million Indian troops served in the second world war, many of them in the gruelling Burma campaign. Troops from Africa, the Caribbean, and across the Empire fought valiantly under British command.”