Proposed Merger of Three UK and Vodafone

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir George. I see we have three Knights Bachelor here today. I do not know what the collective noun is for Knights Bachelor; the obvious answer would be a round table. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) on introducing this debate on an important issue that will affect not justó 27 million consumers, but the whole country. There is an important debate to be had. I was glad he paid tribute to Unite the union. It is not my trade union, but it has done a great deal of work in this field.

[Navendu Mishra]

You can join!

[Sir Chris Bryant]

No, I am in the GMB, if we are doing announcements. It was also good to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). The latter made an interesting point about Teddy Roosevelt, who largely got elected on the back of resurrecting the old Sherman Anti-Trust Act, to break up the powerful railroad conglomerates in the United States of America. I have always thought that anti-trust legislation could be used to protect consumers; it is vital part of our artillery in Government.

It is always good to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It amazes me what he knows about; he knows about everything. He is a one-man Opposition, entirely on his own. He made a really important point about rural access to telephony. My constituency in the Rhondda is semi-rural. It feels quite congested, with lots of people living closely on top of each other, largely in terraced housing in the valleys, but everybody lives within a mile of a farm or a field, normally with sheep or cows in it. Some of our mobile telephone connection rates are shocking. Ofcom’s declared figures for all mobile operators show 100% connection. It certainly does not feel like that when I am walking up or down Hannah Street; it is impossible to ring anybody. I am painfully aware of the issues he raised. Today, mobile phone connection can be the difference between life and death. For many poorer families, it is their only means of telecommunication. It is how they apply for a job or register for a bank account. It is how most people run so many parts of their lives. That makes this an important debate.

In essence, there are two, slightly separate questions. The first is: what is good for consumers, the industry and the market? That is a matter primarily for the Competition and Markets Authority, although I shall mention a few things that I hope it will bear in mind when it comes to make its decision. Then there is the separate matter of the security of the UK’s mobile infrastructure from potentially hostile actors. That is a matter for the UK Government through the investment security unit in the Cabinet Office.

I turn to the competition issues first. As others have said, it will always be a matter of concern when two operators merge, taking the number from four to three, and especially so when that creates an operator with 27 million customers; it would be the largest in the field. That intrinsically implies that there will be less competition in the market, and that consumers might face higher charges. Indeed, Which? has made the obvious point:

“Reducing the number of network providers from four to three risks reducing the choices available to consumers, raising prices and lowering the quality of services available.”

To make a point in line with that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, prices really do matter to every family in our constituencies these days. I note that this year, tariff rates rose in EE’s case by 14.4%, in O2’s by 17.3%, in Vodafone and Three’s by 14.4%, and in BT Mobile’s by 14.4%. That is an awful lot of instances of 14.4%. That does not feel like a very competitive market to me.

Prices for lower-use mobile customers are even worse and much more worrying. Ofcom found a 13% year-on-year real-terms increase in the price of pay-monthly, SIM-only mobile services in 2022. The Labour party and I worry that those increases have contributed to inflation and the cost of living crisis. Yet a smartphone is no longer a luxury; many children do their homework on smartphones, and people fill in job applications on them, or run their companies from them. Both Three and Vodafone have increased prices above inflation recently, which might be an indication of their plans for the future. However, the price rises happened while the companies remain separate. I therefore urge the CMA to carefully consider the likely effect on both companies’ 27 million existing customers.

Vodafone and Three argue completely the opposite of what has been said in this debate, and I will deal with that. They claim that since the other two mobile network operators are much larger, the merger might, counterintuitively, help competition by introducing a genuine third mobile network operator of similar size. They also argue that the concern about competition in the mobile phone market is exaggerated, as the separate mobile virtual network operators market, made up of end providers such as Tesco Mobile, which do not own infrastructure but buy access from the mobile network operators, is very competitive, and has low barriers to entry. Again, Vodafone and Three claim that having a third player in addition to EE and O2, which can offer mobile virtual network operator carriage, is good for competition. They also argue that they need to merge in order to invest sufficiently in 5G, and have the stated aim of making £11 billion in investment over a decade.

[Navendu Mishra]

The information my hon. Friend is sharing is important. On the point that Vodafone and Three make about the merger creating a new outlet for virtual carriers—I think they are called MVNOs—Vodafone already supplies a number of MVNOs, including Asda Mobile, VOXI, which I think is its own brand, Lebara and several others. That does not make any sense at all. Surely consolidating the number of suppliers in the market will result in even higher price rises than the 14.4% he quoted.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has been reading my notes, but that was one of the points I was going to make. Those are issues that the CMA will have to look at very closely with an eye to making sure that consumers are protected.

As has already been pointed out, the idea of an £11 billion investment in 5G would be great if it were a bankable commitment, because I want to see the roll-out of high-quality 5G services across the whole country. As I have already said, that is essential if we are to have levelling up across the country, including in places such as the Rhondda.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), pointed out that mergers in other markets have not always led to increased investment; if anything, there has been a tendency in the other direction. I hope that the CMA will look at that. It is worth bearing in mind that the EU’s competition directorate blocked CK Hutchison’s plan to acquire O2 from Telefónica in 2016. The CMA may well want to look at the reasoning behind that decision, as some of the issues may still pertain today.

In any case, competition is not just about having three players competing for business. In practice, many consumers have little or no choice of operator because of local coverage issues. If the main player has only two other companies looking over its shoulder, it may too readily come to pricing decisions that extract maximum income for the company rather than provide enhanced value for the consumer. Again, I hope that the CMA will consider all those matters carefully.

There is one other market-related issue that I hope the CMA will consider: the trained workforce. Vodafone states that the merger is expected to result in

“£700 million of annual cost and capex synergies by the fifth…year post-completion”.

I want to know what that means for jobs. The market has regularly complained about shortages in its workforce. It is difficult to see how the merged company could make those significant savings without significant job losses, but until now it has been rather coy about that. Understandably, staff at the two companies and their union, Unite, are concerned about job losses, and we stand four-square behind those concerns. It would be an own goal for the UK telecoms industry to lose significant numbers of workers from its skilled workforce at this time. Far from helping to develop infrastructure in the UK, that could hinder it.

Let me turn to security issues. The merger will require the approval of the investment security unit, which was moved from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Cabinet Office. In effect, that means that, in relation to security issues, approval will be a decision for the Prime Minister. I do not want to exaggerate the security issues, but it is worth bearing in mind that the new company would have to handle extremely sensitive material regarding 27 million customers, as well as contracts for the NHS, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Defence, as has already been said.

Those contracts are currently with Vodafone, not with Three. In the case of the Ministry of Defence, for instance, Vodafone was recently awarded a contract to provide video conferencing and recording services to UK military courts in cases relating to sexual offences. That is an important matter that we should consider carefully. Does it make sense to give such a role to a company, CK Hutchison Holdings—the owner of Three—that is a Hong Kong-based and Cayman Islands-registered conglomerate that was formed only in 2015?

My questions for the Minister are as follows. What assessment have the Government made of the relationship between CK Hutchison and the Chinese state? If the merger were to go ahead, how would the Government seek to guarantee the security of national and personal data? Would they, for instance, consider carving out Government contracts from the deal? Under the provisions of the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021 and the Government’s designated vendor direction, all telecoms operators are meant to strip Huawei from 5G by the end of 2027. What progress has been made on that, and what in particular has been done at Three and Vodafone? What impact do the Government feel that the Chinese security law in relation to Hong Kong has on Three and CK Hutchison Holdings?

On the security issues, can the Minister tell us what stage the decision is at? Will any Government decision, and the reasoning behind it, be published? Will Parliament be engaged in the process in any way? The Minister will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee has expressed its concerns about the process. The Committee said:

“The fact that the Government does not want there to be any meaningful scrutiny of sensitive investment deals…is of serious concern.”

It went on:

“Effective Parliamentary oversight is not some kind of ‘optional extra’ – it is a vital safeguard in any functioning Parliamentary democracy”.

That is particularly important for us to consider given that the Chinese state has sanctioned several Members of Parliament, including, incidentally, the Security Minister.

Given the recent stories about the Chinese state’s attempts to infiltrate Westminster and serious concerns regarding Chinese involvement in other parts of our national infrastructure, how will the Government ensure that the merger, if it goes ahead, does not undermine national and personal security? How will the Government ensure that all ministerial meetings with CK Hutchison Holdings and its subsidiaries are published in full and in good time, in case there is any inappropriate lobbying?

I want to say one final thing, because we are partly talking about China. Next week will see the 1,000th day of the incarceration of Jimmy Lai, who is a British national. The House will not be sitting, but I think all Members would want to put on the record that we believe he has been incorrectly and inappropriately held in custody. We would like to see him free.

Access to Broadband Services

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, though I merely point out that Sir Christophers are two a penny these days. You have said in the Chamber that I like the sound of my voice too much—I see the Minister is agreeing—so I will try to limit my remarks as much as I can.

It is a great delight to be here. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) on his marriage and on securing the debate, not least because it matters to a much larger number of Members than are able to be here this afternoon. I think very fondly of Stirling. I was partly schooled in Stirling—well, the school was entirely in Stirling; whether I was fully schooled is another matter. I remember standing at the beheading stone, looking down over the Raploch and seeing some of the issues that I thought most needed addressing in the whole of British society.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about rural and semi-rural areas, because the category of semi-rural is complicated and difficult. In the Rhondda, which hon. Members are all very welcome to visit, it feels very congested, but it is semi-rural, because everybody lives within 1 mile of a farm—hence “How Green Was My Valley” and all the rest of it. That provides real difficulties, as do the valleys’ contours, for mobile telephony and broadband connectivity. The hon. Gentleman rightly made the point that often this is far too complicated. It is not just complex; it has been complicated by lots of different players in the market not being able to work together.

It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who is the sole English Conservative MP here today. I know that she is a very fine swimmer, because she swam in the parliamentary swimming team with me. She was right to raise not only the issue of GP appointments—when we can get them at all—but that of banks closing. When Lloyds closes in Tonypandy next year, there will not be a single bank in the Rhondda. That is a major problem for lots of businesses and lots of individuals. Sometimes it is necessary to go to a bank physically, and at the moment that means effectively going to Cardiff, which could be a very long bus ride from many areas, if there is ever a bus to get on. She makes a good point. She also referred to the points that Age UK has made about the problems for older citizens. I think she mentioned the over-60s. Since I am in that category, I was a bit troubled, but maybe I misheard because I do not have my hearing aids in.

It was great to hear from my very friendly hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I knew all about the white telephone boxes, although if there is a telephone box left anywhere it is a miracle these days. She is right about the lack of competition, and sometimes when competition arrives there is so little co-ordination that people end up with roads being dug up endlessly all over the place. People ask, “Well, couldn’t somebody have just spoken to someone before they started digging it up again?” The roads end up looking like a bizarre patchwork. We have exactly the same problem with the Rhondda—Members will have noticed that this is all about the Rhonda—being dug up, and Rhondda Cynon Taf Council is tearing its hair out. The moment it has done a road and resurfaced it, suddenly some broadband operator wants to dig it up all over again.

The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) talked about weather in the wild—we certainly know all about that—and the need for greater resilience. Often people who make decisions for cities simply do not understand the kind of issues that might be faced in a rural or semi-rural area. In valley communities, what happens on the top of the mountain ends up affecting everybody at the bottom of the valley pretty quickly.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake)—it is great that this debate has been so Welsh-heavy; there has been a great deal of Welsh hwyl, and if we put this much effort into the World cup, I am sure we will triumph—is right about hybrid working and the fact that many people are now choosing to work in a different way. Many of the communities we are talking about are ideal for hybrid working, because the quality of life—leaving out the issue of broadband—is superb. We should want to re-energise those communities. We would be adding genuine value. The hon. Gentleman is also right about the public sector and the need for co-ordination. A large number of public services now rely completely on constituents being able to access broadband. If someone sets up a business and gets to the £85,000 threshold for VAT, they have to submit a digital return, and the aim is to get to that system for all of taxation. Encouraging people to set up new businesses is not very effective if they have to sit there and watch a page buffer for an hour and a half.

My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) also spoke of paperwork, and she is right to say that farmers need good broadband. Very few farms, especially hill farms and farms in these kinds of areas, are able to survive unless they diversify in some shape or form. They could diversify into what they call in Italy an agriturismo business, and we maybe need a defined category for that with the proper support, but without broadband it would be very difficult for farmers to do that, let alone access and submit all the required forms. My hon. Friend was also right about interim targets, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—we have not yet finished with Wales—is absolutely right to say that it is shocking that in significant areas in the country the sign-off looks like it will not be happening until 2024. Given that every time there has been a target, it has not been met, it may well not happen until the second or third quarter of 2024. That would mean that people would not get a decent rate of broadband service until 2027 or even 2028.

I used to work at the BBC many years ago. I did not exactly write “BBC Beyond 2000”, where we talked about a digicopoeia—someone else drafted it, and I rewrote it in English—but we have been talking about this for a very long time, and we still have not got there. Sometimes it is embarrassing to go to other countries, elsewhere in Europe or around the world, and find that the connectivity is swifter, better and easier than here in the UK.

Lots of hon. Members have made the point that broadband—and telephony as well; I make that point because Porth, where I live, has the worst telephony connection I know of in the country—is a vital service. It is vital for schools and the NHS. Whoever thought that they would have their MRI scan taken by somebody in a hospital in one part of the country and have it read by somebody else who is not necessarily even in the UK, as it might be read at a different time of night. That all relies on very serious broadband availability. The issue of banks has already been raised. I would also argue that if we are going to have serious public sector reform, and if we are to be able to use the advantages that might come from AI, we need significant broadband speeds as well. It is as vital as water, electricity and gas, as many hon. Members have said.

That is why it is depressing that Boris Johnson—I think we are still allowed to refer to him—said in 2019 that the target for full fibre to all was 2025. The target now is just that 85% of premises will have access to gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. That is 15% not getting anywhere near those speeds, while a significant number of other people will be relying on part cable and part fibre. That is nowhere near the target set just in 2019, at the beginning of this Parliament. In fact, as of January, only 72% of UK premises had a gigabit-capable broadband connection.

The situation in rural areas, as everybody has mentioned, is still very slow, and progress is slow too. Project Gigabit had money allocated for it in 2020, but no regional contract was awarded until last November—that is two and a half years wasted—and £3.8 billion, or roughly 75% of it, is still to be allocated. That is shocking, because it is about large chunks of our constituencies, and many other constituencies in the land, not having access to what we have all deemed to be a basic necessity. My first question to the Minister is, therefore, when will it all be allocated? Does he have a specific timetable? He is looking very inscrutable—he is doing his best inscrutable look now, which is his favourite look.

The private sector is responsible for 80% of those who are not classed as hard-to-reach, but many of whom have significant difficulties, negotiating wayleaves for instance. I thought that the regulations had been changed to make that easier, but that is notwithstanding the issues that one then has of lots of different people competing to place their cables in the same place. There are also difficulties for the private sector around accessing multi-dwelling units, and the private sector complains—already has complained; one of the first emails I had just today was about this—about chronic skilled-worker shortages.

I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what new barrier-busting mechanisms is the Department looking to introduce to help ease some of those problems? Could he provide an update on when flexi-permits will finally become available? Secondly, what work is the Department doing to foster a skilled telecoms workforce within the UK? Is there an update on whether telecoms engineers might be added to the shortage occupation list to ease the process of overseas recruitment? Thirdly, it is absolutely crucial to the roll-out that there is healthy competition within the industry. What is the Department doing to ensure that that competition is lively?

I have one other area that I will briefly speak about, which is affordability. I am very conscious, representing one of the poorest constituencies in the land, that if someone has to find £26 a month for a bill that, 15 or 20 years ago, they did not even think of as part of the utilities, that is a significant additional cost. I suspect that is why 4.3% of people in the Rhonda still receive less than 10 megabits per second—that is double the Welsh average but less than the United Kingdom’s—while our download speed is just 52.5 megabits per second, as opposed to 111.6 for the UK. That means that nearly all of the Rhonda—all of the wards—is in the worst 10% in the UK, and a lot of that is about affordability.

Citizens Advice have said that one million people have cancelled their broadband this year because of the cost of living crisis. That is an additional worry. Digital poverty, is, of course, a vicious circle. If someone has lost their job, they need to go online to search for jobs, or they might want to use the internet to be able to start up a new business, so it can become a vicious circle as someone becomes more and more isolated. That is why we believe that it is really important to introduce a proper affordability policy, which the Labour party intends to introduce if it enters government.

Our plan is to help prevent families being hit with a bombshell of broadband prices. First, we will reverse changes made by the Government in 2019 that allowed regulated wholesale prices to rise with inflation rather than costs. That will ensure that wholesalers and internet service providers do not get a windfall from sky-high inflation while families and firms struggle to pay their bills. Secondly, we will prompt Ofcom to investigate and take action to strengthen consumer protections, including taking action on mid-contract price rises, early termination costs for social tariff customers and loyalty penalties where long-term customers pay more than new customers.

Finally, we will ensure that there is an industry-wide social tariff for low-income families. Individual providers are already offering discounted packages, but Ofcom and Which? have branded them the “best-kept secret” in broadband. Labour will ensure that that secret comes to an end, prompting industry to work with Ofcom and consumer groups to develop a mandatory and well-advertised broadband social tariff for low-income families and promising to set and legislate for one in Government if they do not.

Channel 4

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

As my hon. Friend will note, we have not increased the amount that Channel 4 can borrow. That will have to be done on a case-by-case basis. What we are doing is enabling Channel 4 to have the tools that it needs to survive in a very changed media landscape, including relaxing the publisher-broadcaster remit. That will enable it to have those commercial freedoms and to stop it having its current rigid business model.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Would it not be really nice if, one day, when a Government Minister was appointed to replace another Government Minister and they knew that the policy their predecessor came up with was completely and utterly bonkers, instead of leaking a letter to the Prime Minister and letting it go out to the country rather than coming to the House first, they decided, “I know what I’m going to do: I’m going to come to the House of Commons and apologise. I’m going to say, ‘I am sorry, my predecessor had completely lost the plot for completely unknown reasons. I apologise to everybody for wasting all this time and energy and I am going to do better.’”? Or is that just the kind of plot that appears on Channel 4?

[Michelle Donelan]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, this topic has been looked at under various predecessors in this role. In fact, the consultation commenced well before my predecessor’s time. In terms of leaks, I can assure him that it was not a Government leak and there is an investigation going on.

Online Safety Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, “Erskine May” says very clearly:

“By established convention, the Government always accedes to the demand from the Leader of the Opposition”

in regard to a no-confidence motion. There has been a very long tradition of all sorts of different kinds of votes of no confidence. Baldwin, Melbourne, Wellington and Salisbury all resigned after a vote on an amendment to the Loyal Address; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Derby and Gladstone resigned after an amendment to the Budget; they considered that to be a vote of no confidence. Neville Chamberlain resigned after a motion to adjourn the House, even though he won the vote, because he saw that as a motion of no confidence. So it is preposterous that the Government are trying to say that the motion that is being tabled for tomorrow somehow does not count.

Let me remind Government Members that on 2 August 1965, the motion tabled by the Conservatives was:

“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government and deplores the Prime Minister’s conduct of the nation’s affairs.”

I think this House agrees with that today.

Of course, we briefly had the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which set in statute that there was only one way of having a motion of no confidence, but this Government overturned and repealed that Act. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), came on behalf of the Government to tell the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act:

“It seems to us to be cleaner and clearer to have a return to a more classical understanding of what a vote of confidence involves.”

It is simple: the Prime Minister is disgraced, he does not enjoy the confidence of the House, and if he simply tries to prevent the House from coming to that decision, it is because he is a coward.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Channel 4 Privatisation

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The UK has the best broadcasting in the world by a country mile. In so many different genres—drama, comedy and natural history—we lead the world, which is remarkable considering that we are a relatively small economy compared with the rest of the world. Channel 4 is intrinsic to making all of that work because it does something that no other broadcaster in the world ever did: it guarantees diversity through the private sector for everybody. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister would want to dismantle it. Will she say just one thing to me? If she does sell it off, will she ensure that it can be owned only by people who pay taxes in this country?

[Julia Lopez]

I agree with the hon. Member about how fantastic our broadcasting sector is—it has unrivalled creativity—and we are seeking fundamentally to preserve that in the reforms that we are making. In this country, we are able to have a great blend of specific public service remits that private broadcasters can deliver, and that is what we would seek to do with Channel 4 going forward, protecting the things that we enjoy and love about it. We believe that any future buyer of Channel 4 would seek to purchase it precisely to tap into the specific markets that it appeals to.

[Chris Bryant]

Will they be British?

[Julia Lopez]

I will not speculate on the nationality of any company. We will be looking at bidders who share our vision for Channel 4, the important role that it plays in investment in our creative industries and the distinct and unique remit that it has in our country. We can provide further details as the process goes on, but I will not stand here and make commitments and crowd out particular buyers for an important UK company.

Russia’s Attack on Ukraine

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. He may have seen that I published the letter that I wrote to Ofcom shortly after I wrote it last week. It has launched 27 live investigations into Russia Today. I hope that it expedites those investigations, and that they result in the removal of Russia Today’s licence so that it is never again able to have the platform to broadcast its propaganda into the UK.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I warmly commend the Secretary of State for the statement that she made earlier and on the tears that she was pouring out over journalists such as Clive Myrie, who are doing a fabulous job. I hope she will not be cross with me now—she likes being cross with me—but some of us are anxious about why we are not going further on the sanctioning of individuals. It is a mystery to me why Roman Abramovich has not yet been sanctioned. The Government know that he has been engaged in illicit activity and is a person of concern to the Government, which is why they have not been encouraging him to come to the UK. I do not know why Alisher Usmanov has not yet been sanctioned. He has been sanctioned by the EU, but not by us. He owns Sutton Place. I do not know why we have not seized that asset. I do not know why the UK has not yet seized a single yacht, flat or property of any kind while other countries in Europe are able to do that. Finally, I wonder whether the Minister will condemn John Terry today. I do not know whether she has seen this, but he has posted today a photo of himself with Roman Abramovich, who is one of Putin’s cronies. What will the people of Ukraine think of the former England football captain?

[Ms Dorries]

I thank my friend the hon. Gentleman for his warm words. I think I just held the tears back—I am a blubberer, as he knows—and I commend him. For Members who have not been on these Benches for many years, he is not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue; he has been campaigning on these issues for many years, including on Magnitsky, and he is a good friend of Bill Browder. He has been raising the issue of Russia for as long as I have been here, which is a very long time. I thank him. It is no surprise to me that he is like a dog with a bone on this, because it has always been one of his passionate interests, and MPs are always at their best and most effective when they campaign in their moment, and his time is here, on this.

I heard everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I heard what he said in business questions. I have heard everything he has said since this happened last Thursday, and I have been watching him carefully—that may disconcert him. Obviously I cannot name individuals in the way that he can, but I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is working on sanctioning. He knows that sanctions are its responsibility and that it is working on those sanctions. I also know that he knows about issues around the National Crime Agency and others, and we all know that this is the mother of Parliaments. We are a legislator, and we abide by the principle of law. He knows that, too, and I know he will find that frustrating.

In football, however, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have tolerated the investment of Russian kleptocrats for far too long. Yesterday’s announcement showed that we have reached a turning point. We need to ensure that football clubs remain viable—that is an important point. I will bring forward our response to the fan-led review as soon as I can, as well as an independent regulator and a fit and proper person test for owners. The fan-led review was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and it could not have come at a more opportune time. I see that as a turning point and there can be no arguments against bringing it forward.

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that I am limited in what I can do in my Department. I cannot mention names. I hope that we will see the Foreign Office come forward with the sanctions that he is looking for.

BBC Funding

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

We can all see how, once again, my hon. Friend speaks up for his constituents. I am interested in the survey and I would love to see some of the responses. He spoke about scrapping not the BBC but the licence fee, because I am sure that his constituents want to watch and enjoy the BBC. This is about how we fund the BBC in a modern digital landscape at a time when young people consume their television in different ways. How do we fund the BBC to protect and maintain it moving forward, but in a different way?

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I wish the Secretary of State would stop with the crocodile tears about the cost-of-living crisis, because £159 is a lot of money, particularly for my constituents, but it happens to be exactly the same amount, on average, as they will pay in extra national insurance from April this year. If the Government really cared about the cost-of-living crisis, they could do something about that. My real fear is that she simply does not understand how intrinsic to the nature of the BBC and its success around the world the licence fee is. It means that there is something for everybody—for all my constituents—including the poorest constituents, who cannot afford Sky. She says that the BBC gets lots of money, but Sky got five times as much money this year, and its revenues this year increased by 18.9%. Yes, this is an unpatriotic move to dismantle one of the greatest British treasures.

[Ms Dorries]

The hon. Gentleman talks about £159, but the BBC wanted it to project to £180. This is one of the levers that we have in Government to help hard-working families, given the increasing inflationary pressures. We are here to help and protect the BBC, and the only way we can do that—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) again: does she support the two-year freeze on the licence fee to help hard-working families? Again, no plan. The hon. Lady dodged that question on media this morning and she is dodging it here in the Chamber.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hosie. May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship? It takes me right back to all those Finance Bills that we got through together, which were immensely entertaining and rewarding.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That’s not true!

[Mel Stride]

No, they were—beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as it were.

I thank all Members for supporting and attending the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport. As the Minister at the time that the Bill was introduced, she was particularly helpful to me and encouraged me to bring these measures to the House.

The Bill is a short, two-clause Bill with a simple objective: to allow the relevant approving authorities to extend immunity from seizure beyond the current 12-month period allowed for in legislation in cases where museums are unable to return loaned objects from abroad because of unforeseen circumstances. The relevant approving authorities are the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport in England, Ministers in Scotland and Wales, and the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland. The Bill will allow the relevant authority to extend the period of protection for up to three months. This power may be exercised on more than one occasion in relation to a particular object.

The Bill enjoyed strong cross-party support on Second Reading, and no amendments have been tabled. For the following reasons, I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the Bill’s passage to Report and Third Reading.

It may be helpful if I explain why the Bill is important for our museums and galleries, and for the institutions abroad that so generously lend their art treasures for the benefit of the UK public. The Bill seeks to amend part 6 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, which provides immunity from seizure for cultural objects on loan from abroad in temporary exhibitions in museums and galleries in the UK. Under section 134 of that Act, cultural objects on loan from abroad to exhibitions held in UK museums and galleries approved under the Act are protected from court-ordered seizure for a period of 12 months from the date the object enters the United Kingdom. That legislation was adopted in response to growing international concern that works of art were in danger of being seized while abroad by those who claimed that they were owed money by a foreign state or because of territorial disputes between countries.

Section 134 of the 2007 Act provides that an object will be protected against seizure throughout the UK if it meets the conditions under section 134(2) and it is brought here for temporary public display by a museum or gallery that is approved under section 136 of the Act by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport or the appropriate authority in the devolved Administrations. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for approving institutions in England, and the devolved Administrations have similar powers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To gain approval under the Act, institutions must demonstrate that their procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects are of a high standard.

In 2007, it was considered that 12 months was an adequate period to allow objects to arrive in the UK and to be returned following their inclusion in a temporary exhibition. Section 134(4) of the 2007 Act therefore provides that the protection continues

“for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”

The only exception to that, in which case the period can be extended, is where an object suffers damage and repair work is required.

There are now 38 institutions across the UK that have been approved for immunity from seizure, and where objects on loan from abroad have received protection. Exhibitions such as “Tutankhamun” at the Saatchi Gallery in 2019, which was visited by more than 580,000 people, would not have been possible without immunity from seizure being in place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

I rise, finally, to express my gratitude to you, Mr Hosie, for your excellent chairmanship of the Committee; to my hon. Friend the Minister for his support and remarks; and to Opposition Members, particularly the hon. Member for Wirral South.

[Chris Bryant]

Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes, I wonder whether he might like to correct the record? The Laughing Cavalier is not actually laughing at all; he is simply smiling. That name is a 19th century invention. It would be better to go back to the original title.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for a typical intervention. I can picture the Laughing Cavalier at the top of the stairs, I think, at the Wallace Collection—what a marvellous painting. The hon. Gentleman is right: the Laughing Cavalier is smiling, but perhaps he is none the less having the last laugh when it comes to his title.

I was in the middle of thanking the hon. Member for Wirral South very much indeed for her support. I also thank the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, for the encouragement she gave me at an early stage. I thank our Clerk, Adam Mellows-Facer, for his superb clerking of the Bill and the help he has provided, as well as all the officials at DCMS who have been engaged on the Bill—their support was invaluable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Concussion in Sport

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am good at clearing the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start with a couple of quotations:

“I felt like there was a rage inside me boiling up and I just needed to get it out. On one occasion, I lit the grill and forgot about it, even though my young child was in the kitchen. When the burning started, it was only when my wife turned up that I realised. When I went out on my bike, I got completely lost, even though it was a journey I have done many times.”

Somebody else said about her father:

“He started to ask: ‘When am I going to get this sorted? When is someone going to fix my head?’”.

The truth is that brain injury is a hidden epidemic in this country. We are used to talking about a pandemic at the moment, but there is a hidden epidemic. It is hidden because lots of people have a brain injury and we would never know. In some cases, yes, there is an evident scar from an operation or road traffic accident, but in many cases the damage is inside the brain and is not visible to anybody. Sometimes, the person in front of us in the queue who is slurring is not actually drunk at all, but has had a brain injury. Our judgmentalism may make that moment even worse for them.

Attitudes have changed considerably in recent years. I remember watching rugby matches in which the commentators used to sort of celebrate the big clashes, when head hit head or boot hit head. I was so proud when in the Six Nations rugby matches this year every single commentator was saying, “I’m sorry, but that tackle is too high”, or, “That’s a really dangerous injury. I hope somebody is looking at that. Isn’t it great that the player’s being taken off the field?”

In the past, there used to be so much: “Play up, play up, play on—play the game!” Or it was: “You’ve got to stay on the pitch whatever, because you’ve been selected and you want to show that you’re a man”—I will talk about the issues facing women in a few moments. There was almost a celebration of that concept of being punch-drunk in rugby, and people would laugh at players who were clearly groggy and unsteady on their feet on the rugby pitch or the football pitch. Thank goodness that a lot of that has changed. The honest truth is that it has changed in very recent years—it is only three or four years ago that commentators were sort of relishing these big fights.

I am really proud that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee started an inquiry into concussion in sport. It feels like some of us have been making these arguments in the House for a long time. This week, Dr Willie Stewart laid bare some of the problems. He said of rugby that one player in every match suffers a brain injury. In every single match that we watch, somebody suffers a brain injury, and the effects of that may last for many years of their life.

“Chronic traumatic encephalopathy” is one of the ways they describe it. This is a horrible image, but it was given to me by Willie Stewart originally: basically, we can imagine the brain as being like a wet sponge in a hard bucket, and when it is smashed against something else, the sponge moves with it, of course, and all the parts of the sponge get stretched, and sometimes they get stretched out so much that they never get back to normal.

Willie Stewart also said that

“the only thing that connects football to American football to boxing to rugby to wrestling…is head impact and head-injury exposure.”

He said that neurodegenerative disease and dementia

“was recorded on the death certificate in about 20% of our former footballers”,

compared with 6% of the population control: 20% versus 6%. I am not sure how much more evidence we need that concussion in sport is doing immense damage to players. In other words, the beautiful game is damaging brains and killing players. Nobby Stiles, Jack Charlton, Sir Bobby Charlton—I think five members of the 1966 team have now been diagnosed with early onset dementia of one kind or another.

This is not just about dementia. Post-concussion syndrome comes in many different forms. Some individuals have diminutive cognitive functioning. They have difficulty remembering things and do not understand why. Others have diminished inhibition, and a sense of rage—I referred to that earlier—or sexual inappropriateness. Those different elements of diminished inhibition also come with diminished executive function, such as an inability to turn up on time, or sometimes chronic fatigue. I do not mean just feeling tired or lazy. Some people call it brain-drain, when every ounce of energy that should be in someone’s Duracell battery has gone. There is nothing left; they are completely running on empty and cannot get themselves out of bed.

Others suffer from depression, anxiety, or horrific mood swings that have a terrible effect on their relationships with loved ones, family members and children. People start to fear what they might do to their children, and there is the horrible effect that that has on someone’s relationship with a wife, husband or partner. It causes terrible family distress.

I have spoken to players and their partners who are desperate to support the person through this, but they do not know how. They do not have the skills. Indeed, they never thought they would need them, as the person involved was so fit—the epitome of health—and to see them in that condition is terribly depressing. Dementia and many of these conditions affect many families, regardless of sports, but they are strongly felt in the sporting community. There is also second impact syndrome, perhaps the most notable instance of which was Ben Robinson in 2013. A young Irish lad, 14 years of age, had a second concussion having gone back on to play. He died later that day.

This is not just about men, although a lot of the research done so far is about elite players who are men. That needs to change. We need to do far more research into the effects of concussion on women, not least because in the United States of America more work has been done because of legal cases. If we consider the incidence of these problems per 1,000 athlete exposures—stick with me—as they call it, for women in soccer the rate is 0.54, whereas for men it is 0.26. In other words, it is 100% higher for women. Similarly, for lacrosse the figure is 0.3 per 1,000 athlete exposures for men, and 0.45 for women, which is 50% greater.

I suspect we would find all those figures writ large across football in the UK and for women’s sports, and we need to do that work. For instance, lots of work has been done on men’s boxing, and one reason why people changed the rules on wearing headguards is that they discovered that there tended to be more concussions with headguards than without, which was counterintuitive. That research was done on men, but there is still no data for women at all. It is shameful.

It is not just about adults, either. Figures I saw today show that 40,000 children go to hospital every year with a brain injury. That is significantly more children than present in hospital with autism, yet we know far more about autism in children than about brain injury in children.

The sporting bodies have repeatedly failed the people they should be there, as employers, to protect. Jeff Astle died in 2002 and the coroner decided that he had died of an industrial disease. He was 59—my age. On 15 October 2020, the coroner decided exactly the same in the case of Alan Jarvis; another footballer and the same verdict—death by industrial disease. What has happened in between? To be honest, from the football authorities, next to nothing: a lot of hand wringing, moaning and saying, “Yes, we’ll do more research; we’re committed to funding more research”, but there has been precious little action.

In UEFA matches, there is still only three minutes for an assessment. A proper brain injury assessment cannot be done in three minutes; 10 minutes would be far more sensible. A team doctor still does the assessment. It should not be the team doctor but an independent medic who does it. Of course, the team doctor wants the player to go back on. The Minister will rightly say that the UK is trialling substitution, but only five countries out of 211 have decided to trial it—five out of 211. Not even all the sports organisations in Europe are doing it. That is a disgrace. By now, substitution should not be a trial, but fully in place.

There is no independent medic sitting on the side of the pitch, watching the match and deciding, “Sorry, that person’s had a brain injury. Ref, you probably didn’t spot it, Coach, you probably didn’t spot it, but I did. That person’s coming off because we’ve got to do an assessment.” It is just basic if we really want to protect the players.

How many times must I hear, “Oh, but the ball is much lighter these days”? Actually, the ball is exactly the same weight as a leather ball. The leather balls gathered more water, so they got a bit heavier, but if we do the physics, the real issue is the speed of the ball. The ball probably travels faster than it did in the past, which means that we probably have more of a problem with heading the ball than we had in the past. We should listen to the research that has been done and implement its recommendations.

Far too much has been left to charities such as Headway and Head for Change, which has just started up and has as ambassadors James Haskell, Geraint Thomas, Inoke Afeaki, Lewis Moody and me; I do not look quite as good in the pictures on the website. There comes a point when if people constantly obfuscate, delay, refuse to act and demand more evidence before acting, they are complicit in the harm that is being done. I have come to the conclusion that football is simply a disgrace.

It is great to see the Minister here today, not least because I know he has been taking some action recently. He has covered several roundtables online. I think I know everybody who has been on his calls. It is great to see that work happening. I was a bit irritated with Leader of the House when I asked him about the matter a few weeks ago because he said that action was for the sporting bodies to take. I know that the Government, through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, have co-ordinated work between different Departments, which is good. I had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) earlier today, which was really positive.

As I have argued for many years, I want the Government to deal with the matter not in little silos, but through one whole co-ordinated effort because it affects the Ministry of Defence, the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—indeed, there is hardly a Department it does not affect. We must therefore tackle it in a co-ordinated way. I am grateful that the Government are doing that. I hope the Minister will be able to say that they will be reporting back to the House at some point on those joint ministerial meetings, because I think they would receive a very strong welcome across the House.

However, I think the Government will still have to go further. If we really want shared protocols on concussion in sport that are shared across all sports at elite, junior and grassroots level for both men and women, that will only really happen with real pushing from the Government —and that means the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. We have to have shared protocols. I know sports are different, with elements that might play out differently, but rugby, football, cycling, hockey, ice hockey, boxing and wrestling all need shared protocols. Quite often, a child in particular will play several sports. They will not understand why there is one set of rules when they play netball and a completely different set of rules when they play baseball, basketball, soccer or whatever. There has to be a shared set of protocols with the same language used in all sports, and that will only happen if it comes from the Government.

I am a Welsh MP. The Minister sent me a text—I hope I am not breaking a confidence—to say that I have to remember that some of this is devolved. I am fully aware of that, but because Wales plays England at rugby in particular—the Minister may not want to remember that fact—it is important that we share the protocols across the whole of the UK. I want a UK-wide approach if we can possibly achieve that. If the Minister were to knock on that door in Wales, I believe he would receive a socially distanced welcome.

Physical education staff in schools and coaches really need a full understanding of concussion. There are still far too many people who simply do not understand it. They think it is only a concussion if you have been knocked out. Actually, being knocked out is a particular form of concussion where a particular part of the brain is affected. However, you might have several concussions without being out at all. That is why it is really important that a better understanding is shared across all PE teachers and coaches.

On legislation, I am always very reluctant to suggest that we need to legislate, but I just note that in the United States of America between 2009 and 2015, all 50 States and the District of Columbia introduced legislation on concussion in sport primarily, but on brain injury in general. The United States of America has a traumatic brain injury Act—we still do not—which lays down all sorts of different elements. It may be that if sporting bodies are not prepared to act, we will have to consider legislation in this field.

There are arguments for legislation in other aspects. There is a Bill going through the House of Lords at the moment to which Lord Ramsbotham, I think, has been tabling amendments this week that insist women who have been subject to a brain injury as part of domestic abuse will be guaranteed a proper test and be screened for brain injury. Women who go to prison will, when they first arrive in prison, all be screened for brain injury as well. I suspect we also need legislation on the treatment of veterans to provide for proper research programmes and for the protection of prisoners.

I warmly welcome the fact that the Select Committee is doing its work and the Government are doing their work, but I suspect that it is still woefully under-resourced. I do not know whether the Select Committee will produce a report or whether it is having another day of evidence, but I think the time is long past when we need a royal commission on brain injury as a whole and concussion in sport in particular, so that all the evidence can be presented, analysed and considered in a quasi-judicial way and we end up protecting people.

I end with this. Sport is good for us. I have no desire to stop people taking part in sport. I want more people to take part in sport. I would like myself to take part in more sport. Sport often involves risks, of course it does, but one player said this to me—I apologise for the language, which is not my language:

“I knew it would bugger up my body. I had no idea it would bugger up my brain.”

That is the bit here that matters and that we have to change. I am not interested in cotton wool—I do not want to mollycoddle anybody—but this is what Hayley McQueen, the sports presenter, said about her dad, Gordon McQueen, the ex-Man United player:

“I can’t believe football, the thing that gave him so much love, has cruelly taken a lot away from us.”

We do not have to lose the good. We can do the good.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this important debate. I know—he has just illustrated this—how deeply he is concerned about the welfare of sportspeople and this issue. I greatly appreciate the care and commitment he has shown in regard to concussion and brain injury in the sporting sector and beyond over many, many years. He has spoken eloquently yet again today, showing great empathy and emotion. I have indeed interacted with many people he has interacted with over a much longer period than I have, and the stories I hear are absolutely heart-rending.

The fact that this debate is taking place is testament to the hon. Gentleman’s energy in chairing the all- party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury. The subject is getting increasing attention across the House and beyond, and I genuinely give him and the APPG credit for highlighting it.

Sports national governing bodies are rightly responsible for the regulation of their sports, and for ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to protect participants from serious injuries. We look to individual sports to take primary responsibility for the safety of their participants, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it must go beyond that, and that the Government have a responsibility too.

I am pleased to acknowledge that positive progress has been made in recent years on this issue, and I am sure it will continue to be made. The Rugby Football Union has been researching head injury in the UK for the last 20 years. Its extensive Headcase education programme, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, has helped increase understanding of concussion prevention and management. The British Horseracing Authority has also made extensive efforts to improve its concussion management protocols.

In football, although there is clearly more to do, I welcome the Football Association’s introduction of two concussion substitutes per FA cup match earlier this year. I am also glad to see that the Premier League started trailing the use of concussion substitutes last month, as the hon. Gentleman also highlighted—we should have shared a speech. Indeed, England is one of only five out of more than 200 countries to trial the new International Football Association Board concussion protocols. I am hopeful that far more countries will follow our lead. We can be proud that we are leading, but there are clearly many more countries to follow.

The FA also issued guidelines last year to help prevent children aged 11 and under from being taught to head footballs during training in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is not just national governing bodies contributing to improvements in player safety. Last November, the Professional Footballers’ Association announced that it would set up a dedicated taskforce to investigate further the issue of brain injury diseases in football, and two independently led research studies supported by the FA are currently examining former professional players for early signs of deteriorating cognitive function. Those are demonstrably good steps across sports, but there is clearly more to do. That will be a familiar theme.

Concussions are notoriously difficult to identify. It is important to note that about 10%—but only about 10%—of reported concussions involve a loss of consciousness, so they are not always readily apparent and the player’s injuries may be far more serious than they appear at the time. Player safety is the No. 1 concern for sport. Much more work is needed to ensure that robust measures are in place to reduce risk and improve the diagnosis and management of sport-related concussion at all levels of sport.

That is why the Secretary of State and I hosted two roundtables on concussion in sport last month. I am grateful to the current and former sportspeople who attended the first roundtable. There were many heartfelt contributions to the discussion, which gave valuable insight into the experience of those who have suffered the consequences of brain injury directly or via loved ones. Attendees acknowledged that sports were now taking concussion far more seriously and players were now more likely to admit to being concussed, but there are still concerns about culture, promoting safety for children, differences between the amateur and professional levels and levels of education among players, whether that is advanced education or education and awareness on the pitch when an injury happens and, indeed, all the way to A&E and so on. There are many areas to investigate.

The second roundtable we had involved mainly national governing bodies and academics who focus on this area. The Secretary of State and I wanted to further understand what work is under way, what research is being undertaken and what more can be done. Chief executives and medical officers from various contact sports attended, along with academics. We also had in attendance representatives from the Department for Education and NHS England, and I am grateful again for those contributions.

We are in the early stages of these discussions, and it is clear that the Government have an important convening role to play here, and perhaps more. Collaboration on best practice, research and concussion protocols must be a priority for sports governing bodies, because one of the things that struck me is that while a lot of work is being done and a lot of research is being undertaken, I was not necessarily convinced there was a lot of sharing of that information and research. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, collaboration is key to moving forward here. We must also ensure that players are not in a position to overrule doctors on medical issues.

[Chris Bryant]

One of my anxieties is that some sports are nervous about sharing because they think that there are legal cases coming, and they do not want to reveal their hand. We need to create a space in which they can do that with safe harbour.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. He may well be right. Of course, as soon as we get into the area of litigation, I am not really able to say much more. But on the principle of encouraging the sharing of information and data wherever possible, he is absolutely right, and we will look at what role we can play in encouraging that. That is a really important point.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the fact that there is lots of research on men but very little on women. We brought that up in the roundtable. We were proactively saying, “Do you have any research? Is there anything more on women?” I think there was a recognition that there is far more work to be done there, but, of course, women suffer injuries as much as men do. In fact, the physiology is perhaps not as well understood, and I therefore appeal to all stakeholders to particularly focus on that area.

We are currently reflecting on the ways that we can move forward on the issues raised in these discussions, and we plan further work and further discussions. The hon. Gentleman is right to sound slightly frustrated—there are lots of discussions, but we do intend to act. I do not know what the conclusions of the work we are doing will be, but I do want to see action. I do not want this to just be a talking shop and ongoing discussions. I also welcome, as he did, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s inquiry, which I hope will add valuable evidence to this debate.

I know that sports want to make progress in this area. It is in their best interests to improve safety for players and, indeed, everybody involved in sport as much as possible. As I said, we want tangible actions. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the further work that is happening across Government on the issue of brain injury. I was delighted to attend a meeting convened by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Minister for Care. We will continue that work across Government, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be involved. I invite ongoing discussions with him; in fact, I am due to meet him and the APPG shortly.

Last week I met a non-governmental organisation, Podium Analytics, which is starting to carry out more important research in this area, particularly focused on under-18s, alongside work and collaboration with the Department for Education. That is important, and that work will continue. Collaboration between sports, player associations, NGOs and others is clearly important, and we want to ensure that it continues and progresses.

The importance of sport has come even more into focus in the last year. We want to redouble our efforts to ensure that progress is made, and I am determined to play my part. I firmly believe that we need to continue to work together in driving forward research and continuing to improve player safety and welfare at all levels of sport. Everyone involved has a love for their sport, and good work has already been done, but there is more to do. We will do everything we can to ensure that all reasonable steps are being taken on safety and to protect British sport from concerns both now and in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I am sure that all the people of Harrogate will play their role in the celebrations. There will be year-long celebrations, and then on the four days of the bank holiday weekend, there will be different moments. We will be reflecting, thanksgiving and celebrating. It is not just a party; it is really a moment to say thank you to Her Majesty.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I feel a bit sorry for the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), only knowing one queen. I have known quite a few in my time; some of them have even been members of royal families. One of the great changes that has happened during this Queen’s reign is that gay men have managed to achieve phenomenal changes in social attitudes in this country. There are many people able to marry the people they love, and that was not possible when she came to the throne. I just hope that this will be a genuinely diverse celebration. I am sure it will, and I fully welcome it.

I hope that it will not just be big events in big cities, but that there will be big events organised from the centre in small towns, in places such as Treorchy, which would run a brilliant event. We have lots of male voice choirs, and we even have a few drag queens, so we could put on a really good show. I hope that the medal will be minted in the Mint—I cannot think of anywhere else where one would want to mint anything other than in the Mint, the Royal Mint, in fact, in Llantrisant.

One tiny word of caution. I remember that, in the 2002 celebrations, because it was a long weekend, there were lots of medical problems because the NHS had not really got itself together to think about how to deal with lots of people with long-standing medical problems. We need to think about that, but otherwise, let’s have a great old party.

[Oliver Dowden]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support. He raises an important point about the NHS, and I will pick that up with our colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care. He is absolutely right to highlight the huge changes that we have seen in our nation, but, at the same time, we have had this constant of Her Majesty. That is the essence of the celebration. He is absolutely right about diversity, and it is so important that everyone in our nation feels they can come together and celebrate, and that the celebration reflects the diversity of modern Britain.