Football Governance

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and the club. He is making an important point, and as I have said repeatedly, financial distribution is something we are looking at. We want and require the Premier League to work with others on this, and if it does not act, we will look at alternative measures.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I would also like to thank our friend, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for such excellent work on the review. Players give their lives for football. My constituent, the former captain of Leeds United, Brian Deane, was woefully let down by the footballing authorities. Will player welfare be central to the new regulator? We have areas, such as the PFA, where there have been recent failings. Will the regulator take on board such issues as whether agents are fit and proper and whether the people who financially advise players are proper to do their work? Those issues are of importance to players playing the game.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member is raising a variety of points. Some of those are likely to be the responsibility of the regulator, but many, such as player welfare, will continue to be the responsibility of other institutions within football.

Jack Ritchie: Gambling Act Review

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and pay tribute to the work he does on this issue. He is absolutely right about that and it is a point to which I will be returning.

I joined Liz and Charles to hear the coroner’s verdict on the last day of the inquest. They had secured the first article 2 inquest into a gambling suicide, examining whether any arm of the state had breached its duty to protect Jack’s life. The coroner found multiple failures spanning three Departments, those responsible for regulation, for education and for treatment. These are failures we have the opportunity to address in the review of the Gambling Act 2005. I know that the Minister shares the concern. He has met Liz and Charles, and others, and he has spoken powerfully on the issue, but there will be powerful forces trying to stop him, just as there were when we took on the tobacco industry.

As I said, Jack was still at school when his addiction started, and the coroner highlighted the following:

“The evidence was that young people were the most at risk from the harms of gambling yet there was and still appears to be, very little education for school children on the subject.”

According to research by the University of Bristol, 55,000 children aged 15 and under have a gambling addiction. That is shocking and it is not by chance, as a generation of gamblers are being hooked before they understand the harm. The industry cannot legally aim its advertising at children, but that is the effect. In 2020, Ipsos MORI and the University of Stirling found that 96% of 11 to 24-year-olds had seen gambling marketing in the previous month and were more likely to bet as a result. Nowhere is this more pervasive than in sport and, particularly for young people, in football. Gambling advertising on shirts, in stadiums, on TV and on social media has merged sports and gambling into a single integrated leisure experience. The industry knows what it is doing, and so do the public, over 60% of whom want a total ban on gambling advertising. We could at the very least return to the approach before the 2005 Act, so I hope the Minister will share his thinking on that, particularly in relation to children.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the regulations are out of touch with the online age. For young people gambling marketing is all-pervasive online in video games and streaming services. We need regulation that is up to date and protects young people from that marketing, including free credit offers, VIP clubs and the whole range of things that bring them into the mechanics of gambling early and powerfully.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend is right. The 2005 Act was flawed, but it did not anticipate how the terrain would change and it is now completely out of date given the challenges we face. Meanwhile, the industry is using every opportunity to exploit people to maximise profits.

The Minister may also reflect on the coroner’s suggestion, as endorsed by the CEO of GambleAware in her evidence, to provide warnings on products saying, “Gambling kills”—just as we did with tobacco. The coroner was also damning of the regulations, saying:

“Despite the system of regulation in force at the time of his death, Jack was able to continue to gamble when he was obviously addicted.”

Despite small changes since 2017, the coroner insisted that “significantly more” needs to be done by the state to protect people. The inquest also revealed the failures in the regulation of dangerous gambling products—some with addiction and at-risk rates of 50%—and the inadequate requirements on operators to intervene and prevent harm. The Gambling Commission must step up its game and take a proactive role in testing and licensing new products, which should be allowed only with safeguards and warnings, and the commission needs to be funded to do that job properly.

The industry must not be given the job of policing itself, and that is a powerful lesson from the inquest. Eighty-six per cent. of its profits come from just 5% of its customers—those who are addicted or at risk of harm. The conflict of interest is clear. Effective regulation starts with protecting those facing harm by tracking their activity across multiple operators, but the industry has been given responsibility for developing a technical solution—the single customer view—to protect those at risk or addicted. The last time the industry was tasked to develop a similar harm reduction tool, GAMSTOP, it dragged its heels for six years, and it failed.

The Betting and Gaming Council has been told to deliver data from its first pilots of the single customer view at the end of March—not far away—so I hope the Minister will update us on what progress, if any, has been made. He should also commit that the single customer view will be put in the hands of a properly resourced and independent body if the BGC fails to deliver what has been demanded by next Thursday.

Linked to that, affordability checks are vital to help addicts and those at risk of harm. Affordability checks for those who lose more than £100 a month gambling would make a profound difference. Some have questioned whether £100 a month is proportionate, but research by the Social Market Foundation found that any affordability checks above that level would continue to allow high losses. Crucially, it would not pick up addiction early enough. Liz and Charles believe that Jack would be alive today if such checks had been in place, flagging his behaviour much earlier and allowing meaningful intervention. He did not lose large sums of money until later, by which time his addiction was entrenched. I ask the Minister to look carefully at affordability checks.

We could also place a duty of care on operators to make them active partners in harm reduction. It would change the landscape, requiring companies do all reasonably possible to avoid harm and allow redress for those who experience it. As well as his thoughts on that, I hope the Minister can share what other regulatory action he is exploring.

As the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) said, the coroner described the warnings, information and treatment as “woefully inadequate”. His prevention of future deaths report states:

“The treatment available and received by Jack was insufficient to cure his addiction—this in part was due to a lack of training for medical professionals around…diagnosis and treatment.”

The coroner highlighted that Jack did not know that his addiction was not his fault. As we move away from the individual responsibility model to a public health approach, we need to change the Gambling Commission’s objective 3 so it has a clear responsibility to minimise gambling harm by protecting the whole population.

Jack was told by health professionals that he had an addictive personality that he would have to learn to live with. He was not diagnosed with gambling disorder. If it had been recognised sooner, if more information had been available to him, to Liz and Charles and to the healthcare professionals he saw, Jack would be alive today. The inquest heard from Dr Matt Gaskell, who leads an NHS northern gambling clinic, that the treatment Jack received was insufficient and that this contributed to his death. Dr Gaskell spoke about the impact gambling has on the brain, causing major changes as addiction develops—and develops quickly. He also underlined that the whole public are at risk, not just a vulnerable few.

We need a new approach that recognises that the problem is with the product, not with the patient, and corresponding public health messaging—an approach that provides early diagnosis and treatment pathways that build on the excellence that exists in the NHS, but make it available to everyone across the country. I recognise that that would require significant additional resource, and there should be no suggestion that the NHS or the taxpayer should have to find that money. We need to adopt the polluter pays principle on this issue as we have on others—that those who create the harm must deal with the damage. The current voluntary arrangements are not up to the task; they will not guarantee the funding we need. We need a statutory levy, independently collected and channelled to the NHS, so that the industry does not have undue influence over its allocation. I hope the Minister agrees.

The coroner’s statement painted a clear picture that gambling led Jack to his death. Jonathan Marron, the director general of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities at the Department of Health and Social Care, agrees. He told the inquest:

“I don’t think there’s any dispute that there’s an association between gambling and suicide.”

That changes everything. The responsibility to make the change falls to Government and to Parliament. We have it in our hands to prevent more deaths.

Given the seriousness of his findings and the multiple failures he identified, the coroner’s prevention of future deaths report was issued to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. The Departments have to respond within 56 days giving details of action taken, or proposed to be taken, and setting out the timetable for action. I do not expect the Minister to speak for them all today, or to provide insight into all the discussions in Government, but I hope he will demonstrate that the Government are ready for the scale and pace of action that we need to stop this industry gambling with lives.

Cultural Objects (Protection from Seizure) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 28th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The Bill has widely been received very positively. There have been very positive discussions with the devolved Governments, as I outlined in the debate on amendment 1 and my other amendments. There have been some changes in relation to Wales and Scotland, but the Bill has received support across the House; it went through Committee without Division, and my amendments on Report have been agreed to without Division. It is an important and widely supported set of measures.

The only exception in which the 12-month period can be extended is where an object suffers damage and repair work is needed. The legislation has been effective over the years and has enabled many exhibitions to be enriched by loans that the public might not otherwise have been able to see. There are now 38 institutions across the United Kingdom that have been approved for immunity from seizure and where objects have benefited from protection. Those 38 institutions are in England and Scotland; there are currently no approved museums in Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

For many of our regional museums, galleries and historic houses, temporary exhibitions are made up with a relatively small number of items from abroad. Does the right hon. Gentleman think we will expand on that number of 38 institutions, to allow many more of our regional museums and galleries to have immunity from seizure?

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My understanding is that the application process to become an approved institution or museum is relatively straightforward. It is rigorous in the sense that, clearly, a number of important aspects have to be met. I would defer to the Minister, who might tell us a little more in his concluding remarks about the guidance that is appropriate and how it operates in those circumstances.

As I was saying, my Bill was drafted to allow the period of protection to be extended beyond 12 months, at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for institutions in England or the relevant approving authority in the devolved nations. That was to ensure that the protection remains fit for purpose and can adequately respond to unforeseen circumstances, and to provide increased confidence in the UK system for those who generously share their cultural objects with UK audiences. The new power to extend would apply following an application from an approved museum or gallery, and extensions would be granted for a further three months initially, with a possibility of a further extension if that is considered necessary. The circumstances in which an extension may be considered will be set out in guidance.

English Football League Governance: Derby County FC

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Once again, my hon. Friend makes some important points, and I am sure fans of Derby County will be grateful to him for his magnanimity in the way he framed his remarks. I believe that the issues he raises will be picked up by the fan-led review to make sure that these risks do not arise again.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As a Leeds United supporter, I know all about having a renegade owner racking up hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees to gamble on sporting success. One of the underlying issues with Derby County and other clubs that face difficulty is hugely inflated transfer fees. Has the Sports Minister considered looking at the role of agents, who are unlicensed and unregulated, and who have no cap on the level of the transfer fees that they can receive, to help calm this situation and stop the financial escalator we are seeing in transfer fees?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. A number of people have concerns about the role that agents play—not least football clubs, managers and indeed sometimes players themselves. It is a slightly, and I choose my words diplomatically, opaque—I was going to say murky—business. As the Sports Minister responds to the fan-led review, this will be an issue that he addresses.

Touring Musicians: EU Visas and Permits

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is particularly apt that you are chairing today’s debate, as a published author on music, Dr Huq. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) not just for securing the debate, but for all the work she has done. We have seen a breadth of support on this issue, much of which she has corralled—and perhaps carolled—into being.

The creative industry is the fastest growing sector in the UK. There are 2,000 employed musicians, 10,000 freelancers and 2,000 administrative and technical workers. Millions of children and adults are currently undertaking music as an educational pursuit in schools, community settings and elsewhere. This country needs its musicians. We will be able to retain them only when we recognise the problems in the industry and work with them to resolve them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) made a very good point about her former constituent David Bowie, who I saw at Glastonbury. Will we see more artists like him if we do not resolve this issue? I have to say the Brixton Academy is one of the best venues in the country and I have been there many times.

This has been the most difficult time for the music industry in generations. Covid-19 has devastated live performance and meant restrictions on travel as well as performance and teaching work—a point well made by my hon. Friend and gig companion, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). I look forward to many future concerts with her—perhaps one or two in the EU if we resolve this issue. The live events sector was the last to reopen after lockdown. Musicians across the country were forced to rely on the complex self-employment income support scheme, their savings or, in some cases, universal credit for income. Many have fallen out of the industry altogether.

We have emerged from lockdown into post-Brexit Britain, which has had a substantial impact on any musician or arts organisation that depends on touring in the EU. In 2019, UK artists played almost four times as many shows across the EU as they did in North America, sustaining an estimated 33,000 British jobs. As a result of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement, in which the EU and UK failed to reach agreement on a visa waiver for performers, EU countries now treat UK performers and crew as visa nationals when entering the EU to do paid work. As a result, as we have heard, UK musicians must now navigate 27 different sets of rules for 27 different countries. Add to that the complexity of navigating the various covid restrictions in each country and we have a significant problem.

The Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), rightly made prescient points about the lack of meetings and the lack of progress by Lord Frost. I do not blame the Minister, who is new in post, but I certainly blame Lord Frost.

I am pleased to note that in the past few days there has been a waiver for British musicians in Spain. Spain was a particularly challenging place for musicians to obtain the right to work without a visa; many musicians described the process as incredibly stressful and the amount of financial information required as extremely invasive. Although the issue has now been resolved, it is important to note that its resolution was within the gift of the Spanish Government, after extensive discussions with our music industry leaders. The problems encountered with Spain still exist in other EU countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), who is an accomplished musician and hopefully a future EU touring musician, was right to say that the issue had been made one of immigration. It should never have been about immigration. I am not the shadow immigration Minister; the Minister is not the immigration Minister. This is a matter for the creative and cultural sector.

Even getting across the border is a huge challenge. Carnets, cabotage and post-Brexit customs controls have meant increased time crossing the border, often costing days of touring time. Eurostar is not a designated port, despite the sector’s repeated calls for it to be since the EU referendum, so musicians have no option but to fly to Europe rather than take the train. Touring musicians care deeply about the climate. Post COP, why are the Government pushing aviation emissions when it is quicker and easier to go to Europe by train?

Those who travel by road—particularly larger ensembles such as orchestras, which travel with special equipment—face big problems at the border. The Association of British Orchestras says:

“A specific concern for UK orchestras is that so many of the ABO’s members operate their own trucks—these are adapted at sizeable expense to accommodate fragile and high value musical instruments—for example humidity and temperature controls, air conditioned, special suspension, special brackets inside to support the instruments.”

It points out that drivers also have specialist knowledge.

In preparation for this debate, I spoke to many musicians and artists who are struggling post Brexit. While I was at COP in Glasgow last week, I met Stuart Murdoch. I am really pleased that his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), is present; we were both with Stuart at a Belle and Sebastian event last week.

Belle and Sebastian are touring nine European countries in the spring. Stuart told me:

“The new rules cause a significant difficulty for us, our crew and the whole industry. Financially, the additional costs incurred for touring clubs and small venues between 200 and 500 people make it impossible to organise a European Tour without third party support. We tour venues between 1200 and 2000 capacity and we can just about make that work. Increased costs of visas, carnets and testing bring a double whammy of Brexit and Coronavirus. The big issue for crew is the 90 days of 180 which could push them out of the industry”—

a point made by the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on music, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), whose leadership on this matter I absolutely rate; I thank him for all his work and look forward to the inquiry that the APPG is launching next week. Stuart also said:

“Passports are retained by Embassies when they are needed to cross borders—even with 2 passports it’s proving near impossible to operate.”

Simon Rix, the bassist in West Yorkshire’s most successful ever band, the Kaiser Chiefs, told me:

“The current legislation post Brexit will make it impossible for the next Adele, Ed Sheeran, Kaiser Chiefs to learn their craft and reach the necessary wider audience that Europe provides. On a personal level it will mean us travelling there less for a number of reasons. Carnet rates at 40% and import duty on merchandise making it harder to make any profit. The merchandise alone would pay for fuel/accommodation for smaller bands and these rules make it financially unsustainable for all but the biggest acts. All this also means less tax income for the country. It would also lead to us outsourcing for crew, lights, PA and trucking meaning less UK jobs and companies moving their business to EU countries.”

Nathan Clark, who runs the best venue in the UK —Brudenell Social Club in my constituency, where I recently saw Sir Tom Jones, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) mentioned in her excellent speech—told me:

“The impact has been twofold. Both in some cancellations of venue bookings due to an artist’s tour not being viable enough across the whole tour, therefore economic cost to us. But the impact of local artists who are now skipping a tour in Europe due to both financial cost, but also mental stress of navigating a tour production, unlike ever before for new aspiring artists exporting their talent.”

There is a risk that when we talk about UK music output, we talk only of major recording and touring artists or highly esteemed orchestras. We can fall into the trap of talking about the industry only as an economic equation, as I did earlier in my speech, but the truth is that much of our cultural offering to the world comes from grassroots artists and freelancers, who are bringing art and culture from every community in the UK.

Matt Holborn is a UK-based violinist, band leader and touring artist. He articulated to me the real threat both to freelance musicians and to music itself, saying:

“as someone who has organised tours and one-off gigs across Europe, Brexit has certainly put a stop to all of it, for the time being. People who are signed to minor record labels…are having to cancel European tours that have been in the planning for years due to the complexity, uncertainty and potential costs…As a freelancer, I have basically written it off now, I haven’t organised with my contacts abroad and haven’t booked in the gigs that I did pre-Brexit and pre Covid. Covid has provided a double whammy, just as you get your head around the visa rules for each country you also have to consider the Covid rules as well.”

We are where we are, and at this time we do not want to start rehashing the debates around Brexit or covid, which might get us nowhere in the short term. In this debate, it is important that we on the Opposition Benches offer practical solutions to this problem, so here are some, and I hope that the Government will take them on board and offer the creative industry some assurance that this situation will get better. I hope that the Minister will respond to these points.

First, let us look at reciprocity. We need to deal with the fact that there are 27 different sets of rules for musicians and music workers to navigate, as compared with the UK’s relatively liberal rules for international musicians to come here through permitted paid engagement and tier 5 visas. We must redress that imbalance and seek reciprocal visa and work permit arrangements for our UK touring artists with the EU. Better yet, the Government should engage with the EU and seek an agreement on a visa waiver for performers, as exists between the EU and other third countries, as well as a waiver on carnets and cabotage. The industry must also have a transparent view of these negotiations through the Government reporting to it and to this House any progress that is being made, particularly in relation to countries that do not offer a cultural exception such as Croatia, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania, Malta and Cyprus.

Other practical steps would include making Eurostar a designated entry and exit point for carnets and cabotage, as well as agreeing a reciprocal arrangement with the EU for the movement of goods for cultural purposes or, at the very least, an exemption for operating on one’s own account. We need an agreement on truck stops, which may look like an EU-wide cultural exemption; on the movement of specialist vehicles; and on transporting concert equipment and personnel. During the negotiation period, the industry needs interim support to mitigate the large-scale disruption caused by Brexit. As we know, negotiations of this sort can take years, so we need something in place now to ease the concerns of the industry. DCMS must produce clear and accessible guidance for musicians at every level as to what they need, and for where. We need to support our musicians, not bury them in a sea of complex administration that is easy to get wrong. I know that thus far, DCMS has been reluctant to provide guidance, or to support any guidance produced by the sector. That needs to change, and greater partnership work in this area is essential.

In the long term, we need a viable plan for UK artists and crew to continue working in all EU27 countries without costly permits or bureaucracy. We have to look at ways to ease the burdens on European tours through some of the measures I have just outlined, and we also need to discuss and focus on what we can do domestically to provide a thriving cultural arena for musicians and artists. I hope that the Minister can address all those points.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I am not sure whether that has helped me to pull myself together, but I will give it my best shot.

I had the privilege of knowing Jo for around 20 years. I shared an office with her for a year before she was so cruelly taken from us. We were elected in 2016, and I am still in that same office now, and not a day goes by when I do not think of her hurtling into our office in her cycling gear, having a chat with my staff and talking about one of the most amazing campaigns that she would be working on. These campaigns ranged widely from reducing loneliness in society to standing up for refugees and fighting for the Labour party’s values, Britain’s democratic values and compassionate values internationally.

Jo was truly driven by giving a voice to the voiceless and by speaking truth to power. If I was really lucky she would bring her beautiful children into the office. I am not sure whether they are here with us today—I do not think they are—but it was always wonderful to see them. If I was really, really lucky I would receive a dinosaur drawing or even get the chance to read them a story. It is these personal memories of Jo that I continue to cherish most every day.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I knew Jo for a far shorter period than my hon. Friend, but we were both candidates in West Yorkshire in the run-up to the 2015 general election. We had meetings as candidates and calls. Sometimes there were things that the rest of us were not prepared or able to articulate, but Jo would always almost read what we were thinking, think the same thing and articulate it more bravely and strongly than the rest of the group of candidates. We could see that bravery and strength after she became an MP. In the legacy and the foundation and what happens now, we can all learn from that and hold on to that as a really strong part of the legacy here in this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

If at any point, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) wants me to call a speaker from the Government Benches and then come back to him, he should just tell me.

Channel 4: Privatisation

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The 31 October 2018 was a day of profound joy in Yorkshire. It was the day when Channel 4 announced that Leeds would be its new home. It is not often that we celebrate something started by Maggie Thatcher in Leeds. Just three years later, we hear that Channel 4 may be privatised, with little realistic prospect that some global media company will want to headquarter its new UK asset, with the largest free streaming service in the UK, in Yorkshire. In a small space of time, all the work done and investment decisions made, which are benefiting some of the most left-behind communities in the country, will be undone so the Government can tick some culture war box that says everything has to be run by space cowboy billionaires or sovereign wealth funds who do not care about our sovereignty.

Channel 4’s publicly owned but entirely commercially funded model means it can operate in a way that no other British broadcaster can: it puts public service before profit at zero cost to the taxpayer. It is for and owned by the people. This distinctive model generates economic, cultural and social impact in Yorkshire and across the UK. Channel 4, as it stands, will not put a billionaire into space, but it will give thousands of jobs to Yorkshire folk.

What has Channel 4 achieved through its unique commercial funding model for Yorkshire and other centres outside London? Some £843 million has been invested in production in the north of England since 2009. Channel 4 will have around 400 roles based outside London by the end of this year. The new national headquarters has already been the catalyst for a clustering of TV, film and creative organisations in our region. It includes a number of independent production companies, the new UKTV Leeds hub, the trade association PACT—the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television—opening a new office and the country’s first Centre of Screen Excellence.

Channel 4’s new emerging indie fund is designed to help indies outside London to break through key stages of growth. The emerging indie fund replaced the alpha fund, which invested in many production companies in the north of England over the years, supporting early development and growth. The indie accelerator provides development funding and bespoke support for 10 indies with black, Asian and minority ethnic leadership, including ClockWork in Leeds. The indie growth fund supports the UK’s independent creative sector by investing in UK-based small and medium-sized enterprises, taking minority stakes to help them grow their businesses to the next stage. Growth fund investments include Yorkshire-based companies Candour, Duck Soup and True North.

What has that meant for public sector broadcasting during covid? Leeds-based Candour Productions produced “The Truth About Long Covid”, which was filmed entirely in Bradford, and Leeds start-up ClockWork Films produced “Ramadan in Lockdown”. Channel 4 only commissions content from external production companies and therefore allows independent producers to retain the IP. Channel 4 funnels the money generated from advertising directly into the creative sector. This publisher-broadcaster model is unique among public service broadcasters but would not be compatible with a model that prioritises profit.

Channel 4’s model is robust and highly resilient. It has been tested by the pandemic and a sharp decline in advertising spend, alongside the rest of sector, but Channel 4 ended 2020 with a significant financial surplus. The corporation was able to repay its furlough payments and avoid the drastic measures taken by other media organisations, such as mass lay-offs or pay cuts for junior staff. In a privatised future, the victims would be British staff at the expense of foreign billionaires. Its model allows Channel 4 to put public service at the core of everything it does.

Thus far, the Minister has not produced an economic impact assessment for privatisation, nor a plan for one prior to making the decision. Perhaps today will be the day. We all suspect that there will not be one, as it would show that, rather than levelling up Yorkshire, privatisation will significantly level it down, with a dismantling of our independent production sector replaced by foreign imports and the old boys of Soho making our programmes once more. That is why I am working with Tracy Brabin and our metro Mayors across the north, as well as the Co-op party, to look at mutualisation, not only to keep Channel 4 in Yorkshire but to keep it in public hands. That is the only way to guarantee its unique offer into the future. If this privatisation goes ahead, it will be the tombstone of this Government’s cultural policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I commend my hon. Friend for his work on behalf of tourism businesses on the Isle of Sheppey. The purpose of brown signs is primarily to direct road users to a tourism attraction or facility to aid the efficient management of traffic. They are not meant to be billboards or adverts as such, but, as he articulated, they do fulfil a useful purpose. He will be aware that such decisions are for local authorities and Highways England, but I appeal to them to listen sympathetically to his request.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op [V])]

I have been speaking to leaders in the tourism industry who are distinctly underwhelmed by the Minister’s tourism recovery plan. An inclusivity ambassador, a rail pass and £10 million of vouchers is not the level of ambition that they were expecting from the much vaunted plan. In particular, coach operators, fairgrounds and tour guides missed out on support during the pandemic. What sector-specific support does the Minister plan to give to those areas that missed out on support during the lockdown and pandemic and had to suffer through three consecutive winters with a lack of support from the Government?

Safety of Journalists

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Freedom of the press is at the centre of a free society, so I would like to start by talking about West Papua, whose people have been fighting for self-determination from Indonesia for 50 years. In the past month, hundreds of Indonesian soldiers have been deployed to the region and thousands of people have been displaced. In the Papuan struggle for liberation, journalists have been one of Indonesia’s key targets, with restrictions in place on foreign journalists and obstacles to receiving permission to report in the country. Once again, the prominent West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor was targeted in an attack after his reporting of the shooting of two Indonesian teachers in April. Similarly concerning is the fact that the capital of Papua province and surrounding areas have been subject to a month-long internet blackout, complicating the media’s efforts to report on the escalating conflict. The curtailment of journalistic freedom in West Papua is not completely new. In 2018, the Indonesian military deported BBC journalists Rebecca Henschke, and her co-reporters Dwiki and Affan; the crew were deported from West Papua after they hurt soldiers’ feelings when covering the ongoing health crisis in the Asmat region, which involved malnutrition and a lack of measles vaccinations causing a measles outbreak that killed dozens, perhaps hundreds—a lack of reporting means we will never know. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists in Indonesia, there were 76 cases of journalists having to obtain prior permission to report in Papua, with 56 of these requests being refused.

The unacceptable targeting of media officers in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes earlier this month was another reminder of the importance of upholding press freedom. The freedom to inform is a crucial indicator of democracy and efforts to curtail it often come with human cost. Anna Politkovskaya was a reporter for the independent Novaya Gazeta in Russia and a critic of President Putin. Like many others, I was shocked and horrified when she was shot to death in the lobby of a Moscow apartment in 2006. In the trial relating to her death, the judge was clear that she was killed for her work

“exposing human rights violations, embezzlement and abuse of power”.

The sad reality is that I would no longer be surprised at such a death; it is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Putin came to power, and in the great majority of cases no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders. That is not to say, of course, that the murder of journalists is a uniquely Russian issue. Many other countries have higher death rates, but nearly 15 years after Politkovskaya’s death the space for independent journalism in Russia has become smaller and smaller, while state-backed media have grown stronger and stronger. Many independent publishers have been forced to cease their publications, while Russian state-backed channels such as RT seem immune from accountability. The lack of accountability may or may not be a result of the clear message from the Russian authorities. Action taken against RT in the UK resulted in measures being taken against the BBC in Russia, while the Russian media are free to criticise the BBC as they see fit.

Russia is not the only state on a mission to reduce or remove BBC influence. Last month, I chaired a joint British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and BBC event on the media in China, and heard how the BBC’s reporting of coronavirus and the persecution of the Uyghurs meant that the Chinese authorities cracked down, removing the BBC World News TV channel outright and banning the BBC World Service in Hong Kong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I share concerns about the escalating persecution of ethnic and religious minorities across the world. Does he agree that journalists have a role to play in raising awareness of issues in China, Russia or wherever it may be, because that is how the rest of the word knows what is going on?

[Alex Sobel]

The freedom of journalistic expression is paramount, including in terms of freedom of religion. The hon. Member makes vital points.

The BBC’s China correspondent has had to move to Taiwan because of safety fears. China’s lack of press freedom is well documented. It sits at 177 out of 180 in the 2021 world press freedom index. Only Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea fall below it. In 2020, a year in which a historically high total of 387 journalists and media workers were detained worldwide, China was the worst offender. In its record-breaking year, at least 274 journalists were locked up for their work. The UK Government must move further and faster in developing an international strategy to defend journalists, media freedom and internet access from authoritarian tendencies across the globe. I hope that that is being discussed at the G7 today.

Of course, the UK is not without fault. The UK ranked just 33rd out of the 180 countries in the 2021 world press freedom index. In February, Andy Aitchison was arrested at his home after photographing a fake blood protest outside the Napier barracks, where asylum seekers were being housed, and still are, even though there has been a High Court ruling against the Government. The police held Mr Aitchison for seven hours and seized his phone and memory card. Mr Aitchison was just doing his job, exercising his right to report freely on the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. He was wrongly arrested and his journalistic material was taken. Still no apology has been forthcoming.

The Government must do better. How can we talk about press freedom without talking about the clearing house: the Orwellian unit that obstructs the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? In a written judgment, made public on Tuesday, Judge Hughes concluded:

“The profound lack of transparency about the operation…might appear…to extend to Ministers.”

I look forward to the Minister clearing that up for us. As well as blocking FOI requests, the unit is alleged to have profiled journalists. Such a profound lack of transparency at the very heart of Government paints a very concerning picture.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation are taken out with impunity both in the UK and elsewhere. SLAPPs are legal actions, the goal of which is not necessarily to win in court but, rather, to silence the target. Powerful interests wanting to shut down stories can do so by taking legal action that they know will cost the defendant huge sums of money in legal fees and potentially take years to resolve. SLAPPs can be taken out by individual businesses, state actors or any other individual or group with enough money to do so. They may target academic freedom, political expression or, more commonly than ever, the freedom of the press.

SLAPPs can kill an uncomfortable story. They can also have the bigger impact of silencing other critical voices, creating the same culture of fear and silence as through illegal means. The Conservatives talk a good game on freedom of expression, but let us not forget that they have been known to exclude newspapers that they do not agree with from official briefings. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on those points.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The former Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

I think this is one of those subjects where, in principle, every Member of the House can agree, but it is in the detail—whether domestically or internationally —that we need to scrutinise Government action. Members right across the House have raised issues on which the Government must and should do more.

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), for his support on SLAPPs and for raising issues around journalistic freedom in the Philippines, one of the world’s most brutal regimes. He spoke about the need to protect journalists in the upcoming online safety Bill. I am sure that we will work closely with him on that.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) commented on a wide range of countries—some of which I failed to mention, so I thank him for that—including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Hungary, where Orbán has used Government media for racist attacks, but restricted the free press; indeed, in some cases, he has expelled the free press from the country. The hon. Member also spoke about Israel, which I mentioned, as did many Members, in the context of the attacks in Gaza. It was no accident that many countries that he mentioned have right-wing populist Governments. Something that those Governments have in common is the restriction of freedom of the press, so that they can carry out their agenda.

I associate myself with the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who has had a distinguished journalistic career. I pay tribute to those British journalists who have been killed for reporting the truth to the world.

I thank my not quite constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who pointed out that destroying the AP building in Gaza was about restricting reporting on that conflict. They have a strong record and history in seeking the fair judicial treatment of journalists facing prosecution related to reporting, and I am sure they will continue to do so.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also rightly praised the NUJ, which fiercely defends the rights of its members—our journalists—whether they are here in the UK or around the world. He also mentioned the work of openDemocracy, which does a brilliant job of safeguarding our freedoms here in the UK and holding the Government to account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) made an exemplary speech, and was absolutely right to remind us that journalists in Northern Ireland continue to receive threats and restrictions on their reporting. The Government must do far more to protect journalists in Northern Ireland. The murder of Lyra McKee must result in justice, and the lessons need to be learned so that no more journalists are killed in Northern Ireland. It is vital that we, on our own shores, protect our own journalists.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was right to highlight the fact that Amal Clooney quit as UK envoy on press freedom, as our own Government failed to stick to international law.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) was totally correct to highlight the horrendous kidnapping of the journalist Roman Protasevich, whose only crime was telling the truth about the brutal regime of his country, Belarus.

I hope that the Minister will give us assurances that he can and will do more to ensure press freedom both here—I did not hear very much in his opening speech to make me feel confident that he will do more here—and globally. He has made many assurances, not just today but last week and in the past, about protecting British journalists and international journalists right around the world, so that they are free to report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am aware that my hon. Friend is a huge fan of Consett AFC, and of course he and his fellow fans are very excited about this historic match, which is due to take place in Wembley. We are working to try to get spectators back into stadiums as soon as possible. I fully understand his disappointment that it does not look as if it will be possible in time for the match, but I have no doubt that he and thousands of others will be cheering on his team from their sofas.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I will ask a question more directly to do with the national lottery. The national lottery helps to fund many charities, cultural organisations and heritage sites, and whoever is awarded the new licence must be beyond reproach. Conservative party donor Richard Desmond—who persuaded the Prime Minister to raise the jackpot limit to benefit his own lottery and then successfully lobbied the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government over the controversial Westferry development, saving himself £40 million, resulting in an unlawful planning decision that was followed soon after by another donation to the Conservative party—wants to run our national lottery. Does the Minister believe that Mr Desmond is a fit and proper person to do this?

[Mr Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of the national lottery. Indeed, I point out that his constituency has received over £6 million in funding over the last five years. Which applicant should take on the franchise is determined by the Gambling Commission, and of course it will want to be satisfied that the successful applicant meets the highest standards of probity and integrity, but it is a matter for the Gambling Commission.