The government is preparing to impose mandatory safeguarding standards on the entertainment industry unless companies demonstrate rapid and substantial improvements, according to BBC News. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy will convene industry leaders next week to deliver an ultimatum: either the broadcasting, publishing, film and entertainment sectors implement robust protections for whistleblowers and vulnerable workers, or the government will force participation in a new regulatory body.
The announcement follows a three-year joint investigation by the Guardian and ITV News that detailed allegations of sexual misconduct against entertainer David Walliams, who denies all claims. The investigation drew on accounts from 30 people and included allegations of inappropriate conduct at *Britain's Got Talent* and HarperCollins, as well as claims involving teenage girls and young women. Walliams lost a legal bid to suppress the allegations, and the outlets published his identity and the allegations on 10 November 2026. In response, the BBC removed programmes involving Walliams from its platforms, including all episodes of *Little Britain*; his literary agents said they were no longer representing him, and he was understood to have been suspended from the Labour Party.
The government's intervention comes amid broader concerns about systemic failures in the creative industries. The Metropolitan Police said it is inviting potential alleged victims to come forward and has a team looking into the matter. This development underscores the seriousness with which authorities are treating the allegations and suggests potential criminal investigations may follow.
What will the government's intervention involve?
Nandy will present two distinct messages at next week's round table meeting with industry leaders. First, she will emphasise that the sector must take responsibility and address safeguarding failures independently, demonstrating that the industry can regulate itself effectively. However, she will simultaneously warn that if the response proves inadequate, government intervention will follow.
The primary enforcement mechanism under consideration is mandatory participation in the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority (CIISA), an industry body currently operating on a voluntary basis. Forcing all major entertainment companies to join CIISA would establish minimum standards for protecting whistleblowers and workers who report misconduct, creating accountability where none presently exists.
Why is voluntary participation insufficient?
Zelda Perkins, the former assistant to jailed film producer Harvey Weinstein who broke a non-disclosure agreement in 2017 to speak publicly about his conduct, has become a prominent advocate for mandatory industry standards. She told BBC Newsnight that there are insufficient protections for high-profile individuals in creative industries and that CIISA membership should be compulsory rather than optional.
There are no other regulatory bodies that are voluntary to join,Perkins said, highlighting the logical flaw in the current system.
Obviously the people who need to be monitored are the people who are not joining.She emphasised that
it's still very wild west in the creative industries, people behave how they want,but added that
you can't change the humans, you can change the rules around them.
This observation reflects a fundamental problem: companies with the worst safeguarding records have no incentive to join a voluntary body that would scrutinise their practices. Mandatory participation would eliminate this loophole and ensure comprehensive coverage across the sector.
What role will non-disclosure agreements play in reform?
Multiple government ministers have called for stricter restrictions on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which have historically been used to silence victims of workplace misconduct. Women and Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson told Sky News that there is
scope to go furtheron legislation restricting such agreements, ensuring that
the legal system was not abused in order to silence women.
Phillipson added:
We cannot have a system where rich and powerful individuals, rich and powerful men, are able to silence women and stop things coming to light.This statement reflects government recognition that NDAs have been weaponised to prevent victims from speaking out, effectively enabling perpetrators to continue misconduct unchecked.
Perkins' organisation, Can't Buy My Silence, has documented how NDAs in entertainment and media settlements routinely prevent workers from discussing their experiences or warning others about problematic individuals. Tightening legislation around NDA use could dismantle one of the most effective tools abusers have used to maintain their positions and reputations.
What did the investigation reveal about Walliams' conduct?
The Guardian and ITV News investigation, which began in April 2023, documented a pattern of alleged misconduct spanning years. Some women accused Walliams of grooming them when they were teenagers, with one accuser characterising her alleged encounter with Walliams at age 15 as sexual assault. In a letter to journalists, Walliams stated he was
not a sexual predatorand had not
broken the law.He acknowledged that he
realised that at times I behaved thoughtlessly towards other people I had casual sexual relationships withand said he regretted not always taking
people's feelings properly into account.
Beyond the formal investigation, industry insiders have provided additional context about Walliams' reputation. A television producer who worked on a show featuring Walliams as a guest several years ago told the BBC she was instructed to keep him away from young female staff members. Speaking anonymously, she revealed she was warned that Walliams was
creepyand
inappropriateand that it was
well-knownhe should not be placed with young female runners. She said she
wasn't at all surprisedwhen allegations emerged.
Comedian Kate Smurthwaite told BBC Newsnight that Walliams was a name that came up
over and over again,and there was a
sense of worryabout him working with young people.
People were saying that they knew people who had worked with him and either felt very uncomfortable and left, or stuck around and felt that his behaviour was inappropriate,she said. When asked why allegations took so long to emerge publicly, Smurthwaite explained:
We all know that women who raise these issues, there's a backlash, which might be legal, it might be in terms of your career or your opportunities, it might be as subtle as being seen as a problem.
Walliams' legal representatives have denied that he was ever warned or faced disciplinary action for messaging runners, and they deny allegations that he behaved inappropriately or harassed young women in the workplace. However, the consistency of accounts from multiple industry professionals suggests a widespread awareness of problematic behaviour that was tolerated rather than addressed.
How does this connect to broader industry failures?
The Walliams allegations arrive in the context of other high-profile cases exposing systemic failures in entertainment safeguarding. The sentencing of disgraced entertainer Russell Brand on charges of rape and sexual assault, combined with ongoing investigations into his conduct, has intensified scrutiny of how the industry protects vulnerable workers and members of the public.
These cases reveal a pattern: powerful individuals operate with relative impunity for extended periods, often protected by institutional silence, legal mechanisms like NDAs, and the reluctance of victims to come forward due to fear of retaliation or career damage. The government's proposed intervention represents an attempt to dismantle these protective structures and establish accountability.
What happens next?
Nandy will present her position to industry leaders at a round table meeting scheduled for the week following the announcement. The government has also indicated it is examining what additional measures it could implement regarding the use of injunctions to prevent reporting, a reference to Walliams' failed legal attempt to suppress the allegations.
The outcome of next week's meeting will determine whether the entertainment industry voluntarily strengthens its safeguarding practices or whether the government proceeds with mandatory regulatory intervention. Given the pattern of industry inaction documented in the Walliams case and others, government-imposed standards appear increasingly likely.
