Community Radio Order 2025
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am here because this is really interesting. I declare an interest, as I played a small part in the days of offshore pirate ships when they were broadcasting; and I have a legitimate interest, in that I helped to advise the then Government before the White Paper that came ahead of commercial broadcasting in the early 1970s. I also made a failed application for one of the first commercial radio stations in Tyne and Wear, of which my noble friend will be aware; I think my little group came second. But I also have an interest in hospital broadcasting, which is really the element of community radio about which I want to talk for a moment, in connection with what I think is a very welcome order.
I have been involved for more than 50 years with one of the largest hospital broadcasting entities, Radio Tyneside, which covers an area around Newcastle upon Tyne and for all those years has served a number of hospitals and the patients in them. When community radio became available a few years ago, my hospital broadcasting people decided to apply for a community licence to broadcast in FM, and it was granted. Currently, Radio Tyneside can be received—I am selling it now—on the web, by FM and of course in direct communication with patients.
I mention all that as background because what is being proposed here seems very important. It is giving a greater level of certainty and continuity to those that broadcast in that way. In a way, it aims more for different kinds of community broadcasters, but the extension, in obtaining that FM licence, from merely serving hospital patients to serving the wider community and, indeed, pursuing its well-being and health outside of the health service, as it were, seems a really fine aim and one which, again, fits exactly within the requirements of community radio.
As I say, I generally welcome these provisions, but I have two concerns and questions, the first of which is about extensions on the basis of analogue broadcasting being regarded as running until 2030. The extensions of time on licences are very welcome. I note, by the way, that the proportion of those listening to analogue varies enormously depending on the nature of the people who are listening, the nature of the community broadcasts themselves and the areas of the country served. Although DAB is fine, it presents certain problems for community radio stations. There are technical problems, and there are problems associated with being part of a multiplex, which is not easy at all, particularly for an organisation such as a hospital broadcasting service. While not much is said about it here, it is important that as much encouragement as possible can be given to entities of that kind. Indeed, the Minister mentioned a number of minority areas, as it were, that are well served by community radio, as they should be, but I hope that the whole group of hospital broadcasters, wherever they may be, will be encouraged to continue and to extend their services in the way in which Radio Tyneside certainly does.
Secondly, there is the question of advertising revenue. Most of these entities have a charitable status of some kind, and sometimes the charitable status and the aims of a charitable operation do not allow anything other than voluntary contributions, so that taking advertising, for instance, somewhat conflicts with the activities. They have to rely wholly on donations and, as we are all aware, donations put pressure on in terms of guaranteeing continuity for income and budgets.
There is an element of competition for audiences between different community providers when an increase in the advertising revenue is available but not necessarily achievable in certain areas. There is possibly a certain unfairness in that. Therefore, while I welcome the idea that this would help some community stations continue when they otherwise could not, there perhaps has to be some kind of balancing to help community stations, such as the one that I am involved with, which have to raise money in a different way. Otherwise, I very much welcome these proposals, and I hope that we can make some progress in continuing with community radio in the future.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may have had a small audience for her speech introducing this order but, much in the way of community radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate set out, the small listenership has still provided a very important and valuable discussion, and I am grateful to my noble friend—my noble and former piratical friend, I should say—for his contribution. I pay tribute to his work and that of Radio Tyneside. With a number of relatives and friends back home in the north-east who have worked in the NHS or who have been in hospital for a period, I know how important that radio station, and the work of hospital radio stations more widely, is to patients and the people who work in our NHS.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to this order. As she says, it follows on from consultation which the previous Government undertook in the last Parliament. She set out the approach that this Government are taking. There are two areas of concern that I want to touch on, which I hope she will be able to help allay.
The first community radio licence was issued in 2005 following the Community Radio Order 2004, which created the regulatory framework. The purpose of community radio is to provide services for the good of members of the public or of particular communities, rather than for commercial reasons. In doing this, community radio stations should provide some form of social gain. They should be not for profit and non-profit distributing. Any form of profit should be used to secure or improve the future of the service, or to deliver a social gain for the community that it serves. I am a little concerned that this order could risk undermining those principles.
The extension of the licences for community radio stations entrenches current operators at the expense of new entrants and could risk locking out competition. Barriers to entry could harm the community radio sector more broadly, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas or rural communities where there is high demand for specific and relevant programming. Extending the licences also eliminates a key check on the service provided by community radio stations. A relicensing process and review of current licences would ensure that current operators are holding up their end of the bargain. They would have to prove that they are delivering social value and serving their communities. New stations would be able to compete for licences, guaranteeing that only those stations which are truly committed to their social purpose are licensed.
Can the Minister set out why the Government are simply extending the licences, rather than taking the opportunity to review the current providers, ensure that they offer the social value that we all want and potentially allow new entrants where there is a need for them? If the Government are committed to these licence extensions, what action will they take to make sure that community radio stations do indeed deliver social gain in future and provide the community-centred public service broadcasting that we all value?
The other area of concern relates to the phasing out of analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope touched on. Many community radio stations report that SSDAB is unaffordable, unreliable and inaccessible in key areas. As my noble friend set out, it can be very variable across the country. Many stations struggle with poor reception and limited reach, particularly in areas with high-density housing or rural areas with uneven topography. The high operating costs make SSDAB unviable for smaller, social-purpose broadcasters, such as those we are concerned with today.
This lack of coverage means that community radio cannot effectively serve minority or overlooked audiences. Stations such as Panj Pani Radio in Leicester and Rutland and Stamford Sound, which serves the county of Rutland and parts of Lincolnshire, have reported critical DAB coverage issues—in their very different geographical areas—preventing them from serving their target audiences effectively. We saw during the pandemic how important these small community stations are and what important local lifelines they can be to people through the provision of local information. Without spectrum alternatives, these issues jeopardise their survival. Regional DAB costs upwards of £78,000 per year, pricing out many community stations. Would the Minister consider the limitations of SSDAB for many community radio stations? Would she commit to reviewing the policy of pursuing that over FM and AM?
The Minister was right to highlight the important of community radio, not just to their audiences but as a stepping stone for those who are starting out in the industry, whose voices may become well known and trusted. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his good question about charitable organisations operating community radio and how the advertising revenue implications of the order might apply to them. With gratitude to the Minister, I look forward to her response.
Lord Byron: 200th Anniversary
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am happy to reassure the noble Earl that, yes, we are. Historic England does a great deal of work, working with police forces across the UK on this important issue. We have to protect our public statues from, alas, vandalism and theft, and from the challenges of climate change. On this, the department, Historic England and many others work closely.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords,
“To have joy, one must share it”.
That is a quotation from Lord Byron. He is hardly being shared where he is presently located. Indeed, the proposals to go to Hyde Park seem almost as bad. Will my noble friend the Minister look carefully at the activities of the Fourth Plinth Commissioning Group at Trafalgar—or “Trafulgar”—Square, where we have seen recently some very interesting choices being made as to who should occupy that plinth. In the final run-off, before announcements were made, it included a great sweet potato and an ice-cream van. Surely Lord Byron deserves better, and would be better placed there to give to the people of this country the joy that he wishes us to share.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As Arts Minister, I am certainly not an art critic. I have always lived by the motto “de gustibus non est disputandum” when it comes to the selection of artwork. The matter of the fourth plinth is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, but I certainly share my noble friend’s hopes that, in moving the statue of Lord Byron to its more prominent place by Victoria Gate, more people will be able to admire this wonderful bronze work by Richard Belt, as well as the very kind Greek donation of the marble, and learn more about Byron’s life and works and be inspired by them.
Young Female Racing Drivers
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(1 year, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I certainly agree with the noble Baroness: we want to hear more from the women who are involved at the highest levels in motorsport, inspiring women such as Susie Wolff, and to remind people of the trailblazing women who have paved the way, such as Lella Lombardi and Desiré Wilson—who has a grandstand name after her at Brands Hatch. Officials at the department have spoken to Formula 1 about the creation of the F1 Academy. As I say, we warmly welcome that as a way of inspiring more people, and are working on the cross-government sports strategy, which, of course, involves liaising with the Department for Education to make sure that in schools we are enabling people to get involved, try new sports and go as far as their talent and ambitions take them.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a driver of a fast car, but I suggest that the game is up as far as your Lordships are concerned. The truth of the matter is that statistic after statistic says clearly that women are better drivers than men. Indeed, four times as many reckless driving cases are brought to our courts in relation to men than in relation to women. Does my noble friend agree that the time is now ripe for us to return to the issue of insurance premiums and to stop women being discriminated against with regard to them, reflecting their better driving?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend’s point is a matter for colleagues in the Department for Transport, but I shall certainly pass it on. I agree with him. Motor sports are ones in which women and men can compete on equal terms; they have done in the past and we would like to see more of that in future. We welcome initiatives to ensure that all women get involved and able to do so.
William Hill: Breaches of Player Protection
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The fines and penalties imposed by the commission are increasing. In the 2016-17 financial year, it issued penalties of just £1.7 million. As I said a moment ago, since the start of 2022 operators have paid more than £76 million. The financial penalties are increasing, and the commission has revoked 14 operator licences and 66 personal licences since 2016. There are a range of sanctions which it can and does undertake.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Minister for the gambling industry. I have great concern as we approach the White Paper. Many of us regularly hear concerns from people about the way in which gambling has been allowed to extend itself through advertising, particularly to vulnerable groups and broadly through sporting industries. Although many gambling companies act entirely responsibly—the best ones certainly do—does my noble friend agree that we must now look carefully at the permissive situation that we have allowed to develop over the last few years?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As part of our review of the 2005 Act, we want to make sure that we get the right balance between respecting people’s freedom of choice, preventing harm and effective and proportionate protections. As part of that review, we have called for evidence on the impacts of advertising, including sports sponsorship. We will be led by the evidence and take appropriate and proportionate action where necessary.
Broadband: Social Tariffs
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, whose Question is helping us to raise awareness for all those that need it. As I said, we are working with a number of groups and parties across the country to get the message out. She rightly underlines the importance of the internet to the way everybody leads their lives. One of the myths to bust is that the speed provided on a social tariff is inferior to other ones. Many providers offer very good services for people, and we are keen to get the message out, through our communications campaign and our work with the Department for Work and Pensions, on the other issues she mentions.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the Minister is right in what he says, but while we all support the universal need for broadband, since 26 December last year, as he knows, planning regulations have been changed so that all new-build housing must have full-fibre broadband provision. Is he satisfied with that, and does he not think there are other ways in which we can encourage providers to provide full fibre for a much wider area of the country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point to the changes that were made in the building regulations on Boxing Day. That, of course, sits alongside the work we have taken forward through two telecommunications infrastructure Acts to help ensure that connectivity reaches more households, particularly those in large blocks of flats. It accompanies our wider work to ensure that everyone has access to high-speed internet. As a result of that, 73% of UK premises can now access gigabit-capable broadband, a huge increase from just 6% this time four years ago.
Football: Abuse and Violence
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have already had discussions in connection with the Online Safety Bill to make sure we tackle the completely unacceptable form of abuse we see against football players and others in leading positions in sport, following their performances. The Bill is designed to ensure that everybody has a safe and enjoyable experience online, and I look forward to debating it with noble Lords when it reaches your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My noble friend acknowledges, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the enormous amount of time that young people spend playing and enjoying football. Does he not think that we ought to be speaking out more about some of the influencers from senior clubs and the language that appears to be permitted in our football grounds?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes—verbal abuse and some of the chants that we hear need to be addressed. The FA’s “Enough is Enough” campaign is, as I say, making it clear that anybody who undertakes unacceptable behaviour will have action taken against them.
Repatriation of Cultural Objects
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s congratulations to the Horniman on its accolade as museum of the year and, indeed, to the People’s History Museum, which was shortlisted and narrowly lost out. As I said, the Horniman Museum is not prohibited in law from taking the decision. The trustees let us know that they had been approached with a request for restitution; I am satisfied that they went about it in a thoughtful manner, in accordance with their guidance. Separate guidance has been published by Arts Council England to inform deliberations by other museums but this does not have any implications for wider positions, particularly in relation to the barrier in law to deaccessioning.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to be churlish but I really must bring my noble friend’s attention to when this Question was raised previously and my own contribution. I asked at that time what negotiations or discussions were to take place between the Government represented by my noble friend and the Government of Denmark about the large amount of silver and other valuables that were looted, particularly from the east coast of this country, in history. Can he guarantee that, if discussions are to take place in this area, he will also be looking to bring back to this country that which is ours?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Again, my noble friend makes an important point. The reason that we have a legal bar on deaccessioning is to protect our national collection so that people—both those from the UK and the many visitors from around the world who come to our excellent museums—are able to see items from across human civilisation and see them in the great sweep of that wide context. Often, the debate about where things are physically located obstructs the more important purpose of museums, which is to continue to educate and inform people about items; that matters wherever they are. In the case of the Horniman Museum, the items that it has transferred legal title of will remain at the Horniman Museum for the foreseeable future.
Channel 4: Annual Report
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to say that we wrote to Channel 4 on 9 June, three weeks, I believe, after receiving the draft copy of the report, outlining our concerns relating to some of the language in the report, which we believed to be at odds with commitments, given to the department at official and ministerial level, to work collaboratively on this issue of its future ownership. As I say, we may have disagreements with some figures at Channel 4 about that, but the Government’s intention is to ensure that Channel 4 has a secure future and the access to capital it needs to continue to entertain and inform audiences in the decades to come.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the Government very rightly supported the headquarters of Channel 4 moving to Leeds. Those of us from Yorkshire are particularly proud that we now have that Channel 4 presence in Leeds. I think some Ministers indicated that it was part of the so-called levelling-up process. Can my noble friend confirm that whatever decision the Government might take, they will do their very best to ensure that the headquarters of Channel 4 remains in Yorkshire?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are very proud to see the benefits that Yorkshire and other parts of the country have accrued from Channel 4 moving its headquarters. Under private ownership, we will maintain Channel 4’s existing obligations for regional production across the whole of the UK. That is one of the things that is so distinctive about the channel, and which would make it an attractive asset to a buyer.
Gambling White Paper
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is being a little unfair, particularly on broadband. Our rollout of gigabit-enabled broadband continues apace, bringing connectivity to many more households across the country. The department is still hard at work on all six Bills that we have this Session. I enjoyed speaking to her this morning about the Online Safety Bill and look forward to debating that and other measures in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is quite correct in what he says, and I support fully his remarks. I had responsibility in the Home Office in the 1990s for gambling and the Government at that time were extremely cautious about allowing the development of gambling, particularly its effect on young people. I remain deeply concerned about what is actually being talked about. My noble friend also must take into account the views of the responsible gambling organisations, which actually feel just as strongly as the rest of us that gambling should be properly regulated and that we should be careful to ensure that it does not do untold damage to young people in particular.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right. Through the work that we have done on the review of the Gambling Act we have, of course, engaged with lots of people, including from the industry, many of whom have been taking forward important actions to make sure that people can gamble safely, fairly and without a problem. All the thoughts we have had through that consultation will be reflected in the White Paper.
Heritage Steam Sector: Coal
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to remind your Lordships’ House of the commitment made by my noble friend in respect of the Environment Act. In respect of Russia, in response to President Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Government have rightly committed to phasing out Russian coal imports by the end of 2022. We think that gives enough time to find alternative suppliers, but we understand and appreciate the pressures on the heritage rail sector, particularly as it faces a crucial year recovering from the pandemic. We have been pleased to discuss this—my honourable friend the heritage Minister has done so with the sector—and we would be very happy to continue to do so as the year unfolds.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, can I raise a wider question with my noble friend? Not only are we talking about steam engines on rail, but about a very big element in society for steam traction engines and other vehicles of this kind. The key point is that the nature of the coal is almost as important as the amount. The amount of sulphur in the coal, for instance, is critical to the safe operation of steam engines on rail, all these other steam-powered vehicles, and indeed those things in showgrounds that we all love to see.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right; this is important for traction engines, maritime steam, industrial museums, blacksmiths and many more. I had the pleasure of discussing this with the director of the National Railway Museum last week at the Science Museum. Despite encouraging research trials by a number of partners in the UK to produce an artificial coal alternative, it is still very much in the research and development stage, with no alternative sources at present. So we continue to discuss this with the sector.
British Museum: Ethiopian Sacred Altar Tablets
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I had the pleasure of addressing the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the United Nations yesterday where there was a special parliamentary briefing from UNESCO on this important matter. The Government are providing initial funding through the Prince Claus Fund to help with the preservation of cultural objects in Ukraine.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that I fully understand his difficulties with this matter. It is a complex matter, as it is with many countries and these arguments about artefacts. Can I ask him whether he has ever had any discussions with his Danish opposite number about the large amount of Anglo-Saxon silver that is held by Danish institutions—more than is held by English institutions? What is the prospect of having these artefacts returned to this country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend. I have had no such discussions with my Danish counterpart, but my noble friend’s question does allude to the complexities of these issues. There are sensitivities that remain very present, on which museums and cultural organisations do such important work in helping us to understand in their fullness, but we must always come to terms with the past and draw our own conclusions.
Gambling: Children and Young People
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as a former Minister for Gambling I have always been very concerned about not only the effects on children of the advertising that we see now on social media but the whole effect of the incredible rise in advertising on our normal media—that is, on television and radio. Can we please have a comment from the Government as to whether we think this has gone too far, as I do, and whether they have any ideas for the future as to how we might restrain those advertisers?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Operators must advertise responsibly, and we are committed to tackling aggressive practices. We have called for evidence on advertising and sponsorship as part of our review. The Public Health England evidence review, which we discussed some weeks ago, did not find evidence that exposure to advertising and marketing was a risk factor for harmful gambling, but we continue to keep this issue under review as we review the Gambling Act.
Zimbabwe: Human Rights
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely to make the point about lawful dissent in a democracy. We are aware of reports of mistreatment of activists in Zimbabwe. On 29 March, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa publicly called on the Zimbabwean Government to end the harassment of political opponents, and we have been clear that Zimbabwe should guarantee the right to freedom of speech which is enshrined in its own constitution.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, alongside justifiable concerns about its human rights record, bearing in mind some recent disturbing reports of forced labour in Zimbabwe in the Marange diamond fields, does my noble friend think that the Government should follow the lead of the United States of America in prohibiting any imports from Zimbabwe where evidence of forced labour has been established?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are aware of the reports of forced labour in diamond mines and the tobacco industry and continue to follow closely concerns over the involvement of children, particularly in mining. We currently support efforts by Zimbabwean civil society organisations to try to ensure that communities benefit from, and are not harmed by, mining activities.
Education: Turing Scheme
Debate between Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we certainly understand that the Republic of Ireland has unilaterally suggested that it might be possible for students in Northern Ireland to take part in Erasmus+. It is not clear how that would work in practice or what the European Commission’s position on that would be, but I can say that UK-wide funding is available as part of the Turing scheme, and universities, colleges and schools across the whole of the UK will be eligible to bid for it, including those in Northern Ireland.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome anything that at least partially replicates the Erasmus and Erasmus+ schemes, which have been very successful, the absence of two-way exchanges with Europe is to be regretted. I ask my noble friend how we intend to replace the elements of Erasmus which gave support not only to educational exchanges with Europe but to wider activities, with training, youth and volunteer activities, and the necessary administrative staff?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend is right to point out the inbound element, and the UK remains an attractive destination for international students, with nearly half a million studying at our world-class universities. On some of the other elements of Erasmus+, sport, for instance, represented a very small part of the programme, representing only 1.8% of the overall budget, but, through our own government schemes such as through Sport England, we have been investing more than £1.2 billion between 2016 and this year on grass-roots sport and physical activity programmes, so we are ensuring that attention is given to them.