Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust order 2021

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, and see the Minister on the Front Bench. The last time we debated heritage matters was the fairs and fairgrounds debate in Westminster Hall, which was quite a while ago. Hopefully, it will not be so long before we get another opportunity to debate heritage matters.

Churches are so important for a number of reasons: as places of worship, of course, but also as community spaces, foodbanks, homeless or refugee support centres, creches and very often beautiful buildings of great historical significance. I am lucky enough to have a number of historically significant churches in my constituency, which bring great benefit to all members of our community, whether Christian or not. Adel St John has served the community of north Leeds for 850 years. The building is one of the finest examples of Norman architecture in Britain. Picture an elaborately carved doorway, a chancel arch with sharp carvings, still clearly visible despite being 850 years old, and a corbel table of 78 grotesque heads. Carvings on the capitals of the supporting pillars include a centaur with bow and arrow, a favoured device of King Stephen, who visited Leeds and whose mother, Adela, was William the Conqueror’s daughter.

Just a few minutes away sits the grade I listed Bramhope Puritan Chapel built in 1649. The chapel’s four walls, doorways and windows stand as they were originally placed. In Otley, we have All Saints’ Church, consecrated as early as the 2nd century, with the present-day chancel dating back to the 11th century. In the centre of Leeds is St John the Evangelist, the oldest church in the city. Unfortunately, despite its great historical significance, it became redundant in 1975. Thankfully, however, the Church Conservation Trust stepped in and saved it from alteration or demolition. Thanks to the trust, it is beautifully maintained and now attracts many visitors with its magnificent Jacobean fittings and architecture.

Such buildings are defining parts of the communities in which they stand. They are places of rejoice, reflection and remembrance, and they are also places of great history and heritage. They are often architectural masterpieces—each one unique, yet part of an integrated whole. Churches encourage tourism to remote or neglected areas, and they tell our shared history. They can also bring great economic benefit.

Like the Minister, I congratulate the Churches Conservation Trust—perhaps we are both now considering a holiday this summer involving some champing. We are reflecting on the good work the trust does in the round. The CCT looks after more than 350 buildings, which would usually attract more than 2 million visitors each year. Its work is vital in protecting some of Britain’s listed buildings and scheduled ancient monuments, which is why the Opposition will support the statutory instrument. The CCT’s commitment to accessibility is something to celebrate, as is its unwavering support for small, knowledgeable and specialist building contractors. Through its vesting programme—the initial repair contracts for newly acquired churches—the CCT is preserving not just buildings, but skills and knowledge. It is also creating jobs in heritage construction, which is really struggling during this period of covid.

Unfortunately, like so many other institutions and organisations, the CCT has lost out to the pandemic, suffering a loss of visitor numbers and income. The usual community events and fundraising activities have been unable to take place in person, although, as the Minister said, the CCT has moved to online fundraising and made up a significant proportion of that income. For churches, the pandemic has compounded issues caused by an intense programme of funding cuts to local authorities, which has been presided over by successive Conservative Governments. Local authorities have been forced to make savings wherever possible while still protecting the most vulnerable people in their communities. That has often come at the expense of our heritage sites, which too often face neglect and decline. The Government must recognise the need to properly conserve all our listed buildings and other historical sites, not just the ones that fall under the CCT’s remit. Can the Minister outline how he is working to protect other sites, especially those under local authority stewardship?

I want to touch briefly on the impact that climate change is having on our historic churches. Higher rainfall is causing damage to timber and stonework, and stronger winds are causing more frequent damage to roofs, towers and spires. One of the greatest threats to church buildings is termites, which are likely to become a real problem in the coming years as Britain’s climate becomes ever more accommodating for them, as we have already seen in France. We have seen northward migration of animals that usually live in the UK. The Government must consider these new threats to our heritage and act accordingly.

All the churches managed by the CCT help tell the story of our heritage. They have stood strong through war, revolution and deadly pandemics, but we must not take them for granted. For them to stand strong for generations to come, we need a proper programme of funding and investment—not just for charities such as the CCT, but for local authorities and heritage organisations. Having said all that, and with room for improvement on the Government’s part, we will not be contesting the SI, because we know how important such funds are for protecting church heritage. However, if the Minister could clarify how the CCT ensures that the funding reaches the sites that most need it, I would be very grateful.

Fairs and Showgrounds

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to be chaired by you, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this vital debate on an important matter, as well as colleagues from across the House for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East passionately showed his connection to and support for showpeople in his comprehensive speech. I was particularly grateful for his support for showpeople in Belgium, and thank him and the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) for highlighting the importance of red diesel.

I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for showing his passion for the King’s Lynn mart, which, I must admit, I had not heard of before, and for his points about local authorities and the need for support from the coronavirus relief fund, which I will come to. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) gave a great exposition of the Ocean Beach Pleasure Park in her constituency, which I look forward to visiting when possible. She also raised the issue of the 3 million excluded, which affects showpeople and those who work in fairs and fairgrounds in particular, as well as the issue of the debts that showpeople have accrued.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as an honourable member of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, is uniquely qualified to comment on and represent the concerns of showpeople, and I thank him for his speech. The hon. Member for Southend West mentioned the decline of the importance of fairs and fairgrounds to Parliament, and the falling away of the all-party parliamentary group, but I am sure that under his and other Back-Bench Members’ leaderships, we can return to the glory days of supporting showpeople. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) highlighted the outdoor nature of fairs and fairgrounds, and their benefits for people’s wellbeing during the pandemic. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) highlighted the specialist manufacturing sector. I will also mention that, as it is important to this debate.

This year, we have seen the Conservative Administration show disdain for workers’ industries across all sectors in the UK. Fairgrounds have been ignored entirely. From the Great British seaside to the commons of our towns and cities, fairgrounds present a unique source of fun to be enjoyed by friends and families alike. Many of us have really fond memories of going to fairs when growing up, particularly in small towns. It was one of our first experiences of being able to go to something independently of our parents, in our early teens. My memories are of going to the Becky fair with my mates and, more recently, of taking my own children to the Leeds Valentine’s fair.

Fairgrounds employ thousands of workers nationally, but with more than 90% of events cancelled this year the sector faces unprecedented hardship, even though fairgrounds have made huge efforts to become covid-secure. The fairs are real family businesses, as so many hon. Members have said, with generations of people owning and working on them. Most are represented by the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, which speaks for nearly all our travelling funfairs.

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, but I say gently to him that it is a bit unkind to say that the Government have done nothing at all for showpeople. The key element to all this is the local council. My council, Gloucester City Council, not only granted the Willie Wilson funfair its usual fair, but actually extended the amount of time it could open, so more people could benefit from it. It is really down to councils, and I hope that both Labour and Conservative councils will respond to our points about supporting showmen.

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Local authorities cannot provide the financial support and grants that the Government can, but I will come to the point about the trading aspects of fairs and fairgrounds, which is hugely important, as he said.

I recently met representatives of the Showmen’s Guild of Great Britain, and the stories that I heard were heartbreaking. As the Minister knows, and as we have shared during the debate, many of those family businesses, which underpin much of our cultural heritage, sit at the heart of communities and often raise huge amounts of money for charity and engage with social initiatives. During covid-19, many showpeople became key workers: many used their heavy goods vehicle licences to help to supply supermarkets across the country, while others delivered fresh produce to local people who were struggling in lockdown. Some even donated supplies to NHS staff and hospitals across the country.

Swathes of the hospitality sector have spent a great deal of time and resource refactoring their businesses to allow them to provide a safe environment for their patrons during the pandemic. Fairground businesses, as we know, are based outdoors in the open air, and are no different. People across the industry have gone to great lengths in that regard, but while businesses in other sectors have been given priority to operate, they have been stymied and blocked. The Government seem to have totally forgotten about the travelling fairgrounds, or are just passing on responsibility without sufficient guidance and support. Businesses are struggling without adequate support from Government, as the direct cash grants for closed businesses are worth—at most—half what they were during the first lockdown.

Meanwhile, the one-off additional restrictions grant for local areas is inadequate and fails to take into account the circumstances of various restrictions in different places. Operators alone have had access to piecemeal self-employment grants that completely overlook each fairground’s numerous additional workers. In my neighbouring constituency of Leeds Central, the Valentine’s fair employs more than 700 people. None has received any financial support or reassurance that they can return to work next year.

The industry has been denied access to the closed local restrictions support grant, and does not appear to be receiving funding from the open discretionary local restrictions support grant—in any case, those grants will be worth at most half. Fairgrounds also do not seem to be in receipt of support from the additional restrictions grant, which, again, is flawed in its design, failing to take into account the circumstances of various restrictions. Grants from those imperfect schemes would still be better than nothing to the fairground sector, which desperately wants to be able to protect jobs, protect the industry, and offer much needed support to both employers and employees, many of whom operate without rateable premises and often as sole traders. The winter months are a period of preparation for the new year in the fairground industry. With no clear plan for their return and no financial support, operators have been left mired in uncertainty. Many find themselves unable to even pay for services missed during peak times of operation.

The Government gave local authorities the power to close travelling fairgrounds while retaining power over theme parks, which are allowed to open while travelling fairgrounds are denied the same opportunity. The Government need to create a level playing field and take a stronger hand with local authorities, as the hon. Member for Gloucester intervened on me to say.

The fairground sector was already facing significant hurdles before the additional complications caused by covid-19. Travel ambiguity and rising costs, a direct result of Brexit, add additional unnecessary strain. Those factors, alongside the squeeze and the pandemic, have left many on the brink.

When I met the Showmen’s Guild, it noted that 40% of members have reported rising insurance fees. Last year alone, one ride saw an insurance cost rise from £177 to £532, which is another issue that the Minister needs to address. He also needs to consider the supply chain. Many manufacturing businesses with a unique set of skills, which the hon. Member for Glasgow Central raised, are worth £200 million to the national economy.

On support elsewhere in the UK, the Scottish Government have issued £1.5 million to Scottish showmen to compensate for their loss of income, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Glasgow East. The devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales are likewise offering specific tailored support. The industry is really struggling. The Minister knows that nearly a quarter of the cultural recovery fund is yet to be allocated, but travelling fairgrounds are currently excluded. Could they now be included, even at this late stage? I want to hear the Minister’s views on that.

Who could deny that fairs and fairgrounds are a part of our nation’s cultural heritage? Even Simon and Garfunkel knew of Scarborough fair, although it ceased to exist 200 years before they penned their classic song. I hope the Minister has urgent solutions, or it might be only in song that people know of our great fairs and travelling fairgrounds in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his practical comments. I am happy to write again to MHCLG. The message is clear in the guidance. As far as I am concerned, those are exactly the kind of entities that should be receiving support and what the programme was designed for. I am happy to write again, but there is a record of where some have received the money. That in itself shows that they can and should be eligible.

[Alex Sobel]

One point made by several Members in the Chamber, including the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), but not addressed by the Minister is that the CRF funding is in his own Department. Will the criteria be extended to allow showpeople to apply for that funding?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I shall be coming on to that in a moment.

Where events have been permitted, there are numerous examples of safe, successful events going ahead, such as Blackheath’s August bank holiday funfair, the Tuckers fair at Birstall, near Leeds, the Charles Cole fair in Southampton and the Winter Festivals at Lakeside, Bluewater and Brent Cross. In my constituency, the local authorities have allowed fairs and other events, and have worked with organisers to ensure that those events are safe. I have seen a good relationship at first hand.

I therefore encourage and expect local authorities to allow fairs and other events to go ahead unless there are health risks that cannot be mitigated. I will repeat that, because this is a really important message: I encourage and expect local authorities to allow fairs and other events to go ahead unless there are health risks that cannot be mitigated. As well as providing vital income for showmen, such events have of course given local communities a much-needed sense of normality while putting in place appropriate mitigations to keep visitors safe.

With regard to the point that the hon. Member for Glasgow East made about local authorities cancelling 2021 fairs, we cannot guarantee what next year will hold, or exactly when covid restrictions will be lifted, but I share his belief that 2021 offers us all at least a glimmer of hope for a return to normality. Decisions about permitting local events are at the discretion of local authorities.

As set out in our guidance, I urge local authorities around the country to consider applications from outdoor event organisers on a case-by-case basis, according to the health situation in the area at the time, and not to issue blanket bans on future events without due regard for the safety measures that we know that such events can implement and put in place. My Department and the MHCLG will continue to engage with Public Health England, local authorities and fairgrounds themselves as part of the continuing reopening process.

Several hon. Members raised the issue of the red diesel duty. At Budget 2020, the Chancellor announced that the Government will remove the entitlement to use red diesel from April 2022, except in agriculture, fishing, farming, rail and non-commercial heating, including domestic heating. The Government recognise that that will be a significant change. Ultimately, this is a matter for the Treasury, which had a consultation, as has been recognised. That consultation, I believe, has now closed and the Treasury will set out the next steps in due course once it has considered the responses to the consultation in detail. I am afraid I cannot say much more at this moment in time.

Tourism: Covid-19

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to sum up what has been, as such debates often are, a very informative debate. Hon. Members have spoken with great passion about the issues facing their constituencies. I particularly thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), who secured the debate and spoke passionately about the need to support our coastal communities.

The UK tourism industry is the sixth-largest in the world. It employs 3.3 million people and generates revenue of £155.4 billion. In this debate, we have toured the nation, and this summer, I myself visited many different parts of our tourism sector to see the impact of covid, the effect of Government support and what additional measures the sector needed. We cannot truly understand the impact unless we have seen it at first hand.

I visited the zoos in London and Knowsley, close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who made excellent points about reduced capacity first highlighted on my visit to Merseyside, and the zoo in Newquay. I see the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) in his place, but unfortunately we did not reach him. I also visited the Eden Project in his constituency and went paddle boarding on the Fowey.

I visited aquariums in Brighton and Plymouth, Hever castle and Powderham castle, the site of the proposed Eden Project North, in Morecambe, and the winter gardens there. I also went to the Manchester museums and galleries and Crownhill fort in Plymouth. I visited Brighton pier and the i360, and the Van Gogh immersive experience in York, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who made an excellent speech about need to return confidence to our sector. Although I did not visit Warwick castle this summer, I did visit when I was a child, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) will invite me back again.

I also stayed at the Seven Bays caravan park in north Cornwall, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) stayed at Unison’s Croyde Bay caravan park. I met hotel, restaurant and bar owners around the country, sometimes in person and sometimes on Zoom. Each had a unique perspective, but all had the same central problem: the huge financial black hole caused by the three-and-a-half-month closure of their organisations and the huge drop in visitor numbers. They all spoke about their fears about the coming winter and their future prospects.

Tourism was always going to be hit hard by a pandemic that meant people had to stay at home. When some of the restrictions were lifted in June, when the sun shone and the newspapers led with photos of bursting beaches and packed-out towns, it seemed to many that summer and the tourism industry underpinning it might just have been spared, but tourism reopened later than any other industry. Despite what the front pages might have shown, it has been, and still is, operating at severely restricted capacity. The industry might have had an okay August, but it lost Easter, May half term, two bank holidays and the whole of June. Those four months are crucial to the industry. Some 92% of tourism businesses said that their revenue had decreased by more than 50% as a result—a point made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), East Devon (Simon Jupp) and Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). This means that the industry is effectively operating through three consecutive winters: the winters of 2019 and 2020 and the winter of coronavirus.

Visit Britain has forecast that tourism revenue in 2020 will decrease by £68.8 billion, which equates to a loss of more than 1 million full-time jobs. Including the 300,000 outlying jobs also at risk, the figure is close to 1.35 million—a third of all tourism jobs. That is 1.35 million full-time jobs that could be lost in the sector, 1.35 million people—people with bills, people with families to feed and people who need and want to work, to provide and contribute.

The Chancellor described his choice to end furlough next month as one of the most difficult decisions. I know the Minister, who is always very kind when we talk, is listening diligently, and I ask that he listen to the tourism industry and reconsider the decision to end furlough. The loss of more than 1 million jobs would be devastating, not just for individual families and households, but for the tourism industry and the health of our whole economy.

With much of the tourism industry yet to reopen and the main summer tourismt season ending in September, ending the furlough scheme means two things: mass unemployment and mass business closures. It is easy to think about the tourism industry from the perspective of the consumer—we can all imagine ourselves sacrificing our holiday to save lives during a deadly pandemic—but we must remember that tourism means jobs. We know that the UK tourism industry is one of our biggest employers and that it is worth 9% of GDP, but many people do not realise that it is also the largest non-governmental mechanism for transferring wealth from urban to rural and seaside communities—a point made by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). These rural and seaside economies are important. Coastal tourism, pre covid, was valued at £13.7 billion in England and £17.1 billion in GB. Tourism employs 20% of the workforce in most coastal towns and more than 50% in many, including Newquay, St Ives, Skegness, Mablethorpe, Cleveleys, Whitby and Minehead. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made the excellent point that the food industry is inextricably linked to the prospects of tourism. Jobs in coastal towns have been disproportionately affected during the pandemic, and covid has cost seaside towns across the country £10.3 billion in lost revenue, according to the National Coastal Tourism Academy. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) correctly made the point that destination management organisations need support to help these economies, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) spoke about promoting domestic tourism as a whole.

That is not say that things were rosy for these coastal regions before covid. It is no secret that many seaside towns in Britain have been struggling for many years. Poverty, inequality and deprivation presided over by successive austerity-driven Conservative Governments have meant that many coastal towns have been in social and economic crisis since long before the pandemic swept ashore. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), when he was in Cornwall, said:

“We need a targeted extension of the furlough scheme for the hardest-hit sectors and proper support in place to help those who are unemployed back into work. People are worried about their job prospects. The Labour Party is focused on fighting for every job and every part of the country.”

He is of course absolutely right. He said that in a coastal town because he and we all know that this must include revitalising our coastal communities, reviving jobs and industries, and diversifying these economies. The current crisis has made it patently clear that this is more urgent than ever.

We cannot discuss tourism in earnest without acknowledging the hospitality industry—one of the key forces powering the UK’s tourism economy. Hotels, pubs and restaurants rely on the tourist trade, and vice versa. Equally, the coach industry that delivers the customers to the hospitality industry has been absolutely decimated by this crisis—a point well made by the hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Sedgefield (Paul Howell). While the Chancellor seemingly saved the day with the eat out to help out scheme—and it cannot be denied that the nation ate out with gusto—the fact remains that only half of restaurants are open and two thirds of businesses are still not making a profit. The number of staff furloughed still remains similar to July, with 51% of hospitality staff still not back at work in August. Taken with the fact that over 80% of employees in the tourism industry have been furloughed, compared with 32% of the total UK workforce, it is clear that ending support for everyone at the end of October will be disastrous. It is a one-size-fits-all approach that is destined to fail. We need a targeted extension to the furlough scheme to protect our most vulnerable workers and industries through this critical time. I am pleased that the hon. Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made these points.

As a party, we are also calling for a £1.7 billion hospitality and high streets fightback fund to help tourism and hospitality businesses that are unable to fully trade. We are calling for this because Labour recognises that the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach to jobs risks tourism falling through the cracks. As a minimum, the Government, rather than clawing back the underspend in grants, need to redeploy it to other industries, particularly those struggling in the visitor economy. While the epidemic has dealt a devastating blow to our tourism industry, with a swift and urgent Government intervention there is an opportunity not just for survival but for recovery and growth—an opportunity to limit the long-term impact of covid-19 not just on people’s livelihoods and businesses but on our towns and our collective heritage and history.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Minister, Nigel Huddleston.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I would like to thank the Barn theatre for all that it has done to help the local community during the coronavirus crisis. Indeed, I thank tourism, leisure and arts businesses across the country, and it was a pleasure to visit some of them in my hon. Friend’s constituency last weekend. I can confirm that the purpose of the £1.57 billion cultural support fund is to support organisations across the cultural sector right across the country, including those that do not have a history of receiving public funding. More information on the eligibility criteria and application process will come by the end of this month, and I encourage the Barn theatre to apply.

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

After staffing, the largest cost that many tourism and hospitality businesses face is their rent. One of the sector’s main asks for yesterday’s statement was help with rent. There is a moratorium on evictions until September. However, many pubs, restaurants, amusement arcades, small museums and other tourist destinations face their quarterly rent bills when they have had no income. What additional steps are the Government taking to help them and ensure that we do not see mass closures?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments and know he shares my concerns about the sector, which is why we have taken so many measures. The issue with rent has been raised at the working group. He is right that there has been a moratorium. We continue to look at further measures. The range of measures already announced are being taken advantage of by the sector, whether it is loans, grants, business rates relief or furlough. The VAT reduction yesterday was welcomed across the sector, but we will continue to engage with it and see what further assistance may be required.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The importance of the heritage rail sector was recognised last year, when the National Lottery Heritage Fund gave a grant of nearly £800,000 to bring the Keighley and Worth Valley railway back into service for the first time in 25 years. My hon. Friend may wish to apply to the £50 million emergency programme launched by the heritage fund to support the heritage sector through the covid-19 pandemic. He may also want to approach Historic England, which has announced an additional £2 million programme of grants for smaller specialist organisations and projects.

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

It is a pleasure to make my Dispatch Box debut, albeit virtually; I believe I am the first Member to make an inaugural appearance from the Front Bench online.

On Friday, G20 Tourism Ministers met. The UK tourism sector is greatly exposed to the lockdown and, with the summer season coming, the uncertainty is causing distress. The sector learnt that it would be among the last to exit lockdown merely as an aside from the Minister for the Cabinet Office on “The Andrew Marr Show”. In contrast, President Macron outlined a strategy for the French tourism trade including flexible furlough, a 100% state-backed loan—not 80%—and state backing for postponed rather than cancelled holidays. Our system of refund credit notes can be expanded and extended to protect our domestic tourism industry. Did the Minister discuss those measures at the G20 meeting? What consideration has he made on introducing them?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his first virtual appearance from the Opposition Front Bench. He raises many important issues. We had a constructive conversation with the G20 tourism Ministers, primarily around the recovery programme. We are continuing the dialogue, both domestically and internationally, on all those issues. Of course, the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector has benefited from additional measures including business rate relief, and we will continue the dialogue with all stakeholders to ensure that the sector is looked after.

Huawei and 5G

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

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

I associate myself with much of what the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has said. Much of Britain’s security future is not invested in weapons or armies, but in communications. The decision to allow Huawei into Britain’s communications puts our infrastructure at risk. Giving Huawei 35% of the 5G network and allowing it into our infrastructure sends a message globally that in terms of telecoms security, anything goes in the UK.

The 5G network is coming and it will be beneficial. The question is how to bring the network forward. Innovations that allow us to speak to friends across the world, that give us limitless information and that will ensure that mobile wi-fi speeds rival those of broadband are necessary for our economic viability, but those possibilities create new threats, such as the placing of spy cameras in every home and microphones in every workplace.

The Americans and the Dutch recognise the threat. The former chief of MI6 recognises the threat. In December 2018, the then Defence Secretary—now the Secretary of State for Education—expressed grave and deep concerns about Huawei providing technology to upgrade Britain’s services to 5G. He accused Beijing of sometimes acting in a malign way. Why can the rest of the Government not recognise the threat? Do we allow a foreign company potential access to every laptop, phone and self-driving car in this country and pay them for the privilege? Do we allow one of the main suppliers of the great firewall to have free rein over our internet back end here? Do we allow a company, closely aligned to a state that has more than 1 million Uyghur Muslims locked up without trial, access to our network infra- structure? I think not.

There have been some attempts to separate the horrors of the Chinese state and Huawei the company, but we have seen time and again that Huawei is intimately intertwined with Chinese policy towards the Uyghur. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute:

“Huawei works directly with the Chinese Government’s Public Security Bureau in Xinjiang on a range of projects.”

We know that Huawei is collaborating with the Chinese Government to build mass surveillance to target the Uyghur people. Why are we rolling out the red carpet to Huawei? It has shown little concern about human rights violations. Its company policy asks:

“Is it legal within the countries in which we operate?”

That is its criterion. It says it is for others to make a judgment on whether that is right or wrong. Is that the kind of company we want at the heart of our infrastructure?

On workers’ rights, we know that Huawei mistreats not only the Uyghurs, but its own workers. It operates a “wolf” work culture of long hours and brutal workplace norms. Hours are so long that new employees are given mattresses to collapse on. The wolf culture encourages employees to break and bend rules. It means that the company uses the police against its own workers, with some being imprisoned for months and months.

Huawei will not hesitate to break the trust that the Government have placed in them if it thinks it will benefit the company. The Government can choose to release the wolf into our country, but they cannot be surprised if they then get bitten. Ironically, the company claims to be owned by the same workers that it mistreats, but its ownership structures, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, are hugely opaque. The operating company is 100% owned by a holding company, which is in turn approximately 1% owned by Huawei’s founder and 99% owned by an entity called a “trade union committee”.

Economy and Society: Contribution of Music

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Westminster Hall

[Conor McGinn]

I agree entirely. It is that diversity and depth that gives UK music its strength.

It is clear that music in the UK punches well above its weight economically, but that is only part of the picture. Music’s value is not purely financial; its social value must not be ignored. Music can have a profound effect on health and wellbeing. Charities such as Nordoff Robbins do fantastic work in bringing high quality music therapy to as many people as possible.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Conor McGinn]

I will, and I will then make some progress, because many people want to speak and I want to give them that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and making an excellent speech. On mental health, does he not agree that small venues, such as Brudenell Social Club in my constituency, are a great outlet for people’s mental health, as well as being community resources right across the piece for acting and a whole range of arts? It is not just about music; small venues provide a gamut of benefits to society.

[Conor McGinn]

Absolutely, they are the very definition of holistic therapy. Nordoff Robbins has worked with over 10,000 vulnerable people, holding 37,000 music therapy sessions in 15 different places across the country, and 90% of those who had music therapy last year were clear that it improved their quality of life.

According to a report by the all-party parliamentary group on arts, health and wellbeing, music therapy reduced agitation and the need for medication for 67% of people with dementia. We can all think of many fantastic examples in our constituencies of groups who use music in working with people with dementia.

In Labour’s recent charter for the arts, my party noted the important role of the arts in mental health and wellbeing. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) will speak more about that from the Front Bench. All the evidence suggests that children who are engaged in education through music, or similarly through other subjects such as drama and sport, do better at core subjects such as maths and English. Music can help give young people confidence and creative release. It teaches teamwork and problem-solving skills, and it is often the reason why a child wants to go to school in the first place.

The contribution of the music industry is not just a fantastic national story. The data in UK Music’s report show the tremendous contribution it makes in every town and city across the UK. Merseyside is, of course, synonymous with world-leading British music, and I do not just mean Liverpool. In St Helens, we have a number of excellent local studios that encourage young musicians to nurture and develop their creative talents, such as Jamm, Elusive and Catalyst. Sadly, the Citadel, one of the first music halls in the country, recently closed its doors, but remarkably it has already reinvented itself as an excellent arts provider, using its strong brand to maintain contact and access for people who want to get involved in music and the arts. The Theatre Royal, as I mentioned, as well as other venues, host live music weekly.

St Helens is also the birthplace of: Sir Thomas Beecham, one of the country’s greatest conductors, known for his association with the London Philharmonic and Royal Philharmonic orchestras; the Beautiful South’s vocalist Jacqui Abbott; and Budgie, the drummer with Siouxsie and the Banshees. It is also importantly home to the Lancashire Hotpots. Of course, Rick Astley is from Newton-le-Willows, where I live. I commend him on playing a fantastic gig in his home town last year at Haydock Park racecourse and I commend the Jockey Club on its fantastic initiative, using its venues to promote music alongside horse-racing.

BBC

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is right. The BBC was very foolish to accept that agreement with the Government, who did what we have seen them do so often: devolve the blame for their cuts. We have seen that time and again, particularly in relation to older people. The Government say they want a good system of adult social care, but they have consistently cut the funding for councils to pay for it, especially in the poorest areas and in those with the longest legacy of industrial diseases and ill health.

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

Have we not found through this that many people who are eligible for pension credit are not getting it? Those who are exempt will not have to pay for TV licences. Some £2,936,000 of pension credit is not being claimed in my constituency, so should we not write to people about that on the back of TV licences? Is it not time that we fixed both the BBC and the issue of pension credit?

[Helen Jones]

I will come in a moment to that very good point. Let us consider how else the Government have dealt with these issues. All people of pension age are entitled to a free bus pass, which was brought in by the Labour Government in 2001 and extended to cover the whole of England in 2008. The scheme is currently underfunded to the tune of about £652 million, because the Government keep reimbursing people based on 2005-06 fares. How long before it disappears?

Discrimination in Sport

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Allin-Khan]

As an avid football fan who stands on the terrace alongside many other fans, I always feel very welcome. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we have come a long way, but we have not come far enough. We need to stamp out any form of discrimination that makes any fan—even one—and any player—even one—feel unwelcome and as though there is not a place for them enjoying the sport that they love on any terrace in our country.

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

There is another form of discrimination relating to the second largest team sport played by black and minority ethnic people, marginalised communities and 11 to 15-year-olds: basketball. Basketball is hugely underfunded and under-supported. It is a sport played by the majority of black people in this country and it would take just £1 million a year to support it at elite level. Other sports played in posh public schools are hugely supported, so is it not a form of discrimination in sport that a sport played by our urban youth and black people is not supported but those played in the top public schools are?

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Basketball has no greater advocate than my hon. Friend, who makes very important points that I hope are heard across the House about the importance of making sure that no child is discriminated against in their life in relation to achieving their full potential in whatever their endeavour is, whether that is academic or about exercising their sporting prowess. We need to make sure that every single child, every single young person and every single anybody who wants to have access to sports and fulfil their potential is able to do so.

We must recognise the work done by governing bodies, clubs and supporters’ groups across all sports to combat discrimination. Furthermore, I am clear that the only way to make progress on this is by involving fans’ groups and giving fans a seat at every table. Fans are the beating heart of sport and sport enjoyment. With the far right on our doorstep, let us be aware of their attempts to infiltrate football and other sports. Let us ensure that we are brave in speaking up against them. When combating the far right, education is an extremely effective tool. Without the understanding of a deep-rooted issue, without realising the connotations behind a particular chant, innocent fans can get caught up in unsavoury actions. When there is a deliberate instance, however, of hate speech, whether on the terraces or on Twitter, the Ministry of Justice should be encouraging the Crown Prosecution Service to prioritise these cases and seek the harshest possible sentences.

We on the Opposition Benches, and I hope all of us in this House, want to live in a country where differences are welcomed—not just accepted, but wholeheartedly welcomed. I believe that there is no greater unifier than sport. Let us send a clear message from this House today that discrimination in sport will not be tolerated.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), and I want to begin where she left off. I agree with her that free TV licences were introduced as a welfare policy. That is very much how it was seen at the time, alongside benefits such as free bus passes and free eye tests. The Government’s decision to pass responsibility for this on to the BBC in the knowledge that the BBC would be under this kind of pressure has two impacts. The first is on the BBC itself; the other is on the pensioners who receive the benefit at the moment.

Passing this responsibility on to the BBC is the policy equivalent of a hospital pass. The Government know that the BBC is under pressure. At the moment, the policy costs some £660 million a year, rising to more than £700 million in a couple of years’ time, and asking the BBC to fund this out of its own resources will leave it facing a cut of around one fifth of its budget. As has been said, that is the equivalent of the budgets for BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC News channel and the children’s channels. This will have a major impact and major implications for our national public service broadcaster at the very moment when the broadcasting and entertainment environment is changing and the BBC is under more pressure than ever from Netflix, Amazon and other providers. The direct impact of this on the BBC is that it will be faced with the awful choice of cutting quality or hitting pensioners.

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

rose—

[Mr McFadden]

I am not going to give way, if that is okay, because there is a lot of pressure on time and others want to speak.

The first impact of the policy will be on the BBC itself. The second impact will be on pensioners, and it will be a dual impact—financial and social. The House of Commons Library estimates that there are around 5,600 households in my constituency with someone who is 75 or over. Looking at the options in the BBC consultation, we see that if the free BBC TV licence were restricted to pension credit recipients, 3,390 of those households would lose out, to the tune of £154 a year. If the qualifying age were raised to 80, around 2,200 households would lose out.

It has been said that we should means-test and restrict the benefit to those on pension credit. We are asked, “After all, what about the very wealthy pensioner with a huge estate?” The problem is that, as with changes to any universal benefit, it will not be just the pensioner with a huge estate who loses out. It is estimated that some 40% of pensioners entitled to pension credit do not receive it. If we go down the road suggested, not only the pensioner with the huge wealth will lose out, but some of the poorest pensioners in my constituency and the other constituencies that have been mentioned in the debate.

Then there is the social and cultural impact of cutting much-needed entertainment and information. What is the Government’s justification? The Minister came close to saying in opening that the change was a consequence of the financial crisis and that the Government were ultimately asking pensioners, some of them the lowest-income pensioners in the country, to pay the cost of it 10 years on. That would be unjust and unfair to pensioners in my constituency.

The free TV licence is, after all, a benefit. The Government should fund it and keep the manifesto promise they made in 2017 to maintain it. They have told us that austerity is over. What better way to start proving that than by changing their minds about the TV licence fee?

The debate is not just a party political joust. Let me act for a moment as the Under-Secretary’s political adviser and give him some friendly advice. If the Government go down this road, they will incur the wrath and lasting anger of pensioners, who have come to expect and are used to this benefit after the 20 or so years of its existence. It will do the Government no good to claim at the next election, “It wasn’t us; it was the BBC.” There is no evading the responsibility for the decision. It comes from and is owned by the Government, and the Government will pay the political price if they proceed with this policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate free TV licences for over-75s. My mam, who I know will be watching, as a lot of pensioners do—I am sure lots of people besides our mams will be watching the Parliament channel—is very passionate about this issue because she is turning 75 in January. To her, this is personal, as she keeps telling me. She feels it has been done deliberately to give her a hard time. It is also personal to the thousands of pensioners who will be worse off if the free TV licence for over-75s is revoked, curtailed or means-tested.

In March, I hosted and addressed the National Pensioners Convention in Parliament for its rally on the BBC’s consultation. I share all of their frustrations about these proposed changes, because I know—I heard this at the rally, from the pensioners—how important their TVs are to their everyday lives. That is why I contributed to the BBC’s consultation in February this year. I have received notification that my letter will be included in the consultation document, so I hope all my points will be taken on board by the BBC and, in turn, listened to by the Government.

The introduction of free TV licences in 2000 for those aged over 75 was one of the many great achievements of the last Labour Government. That is why I and many of my colleagues opposed the Conservative Government’s outsourcing of this social benefit to the BBC as part of its 2015 royal charter. As we have heard, the cost to the BBC is roughly equivalent to the total it currently spends on all of BBC Two, BBC Three, BBC Four, the BBC news channel, CBBC and CBeebies, so I strongly disagree with what the Prime Minister said at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). She said that

“there is no reason why the BBC, with the money made available to it, is not able to continue that.”—[Official Report, 1 May 2019; Vol. 659, c. 203.]

I am incredulous that the Prime Minister really believes the BBC can fund all of this without detriment. Even to try to do so would be extremely detrimental to the content the BBC is able to offer, and risks causing immense damage to the quality of the service that we all currently enjoy.

I agree with BECTU—the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union—which has said, in opposing the proposals to scrap or limit free TV licences:

“as a welfare benefit, meeting the cost of free licence fees should be the duty of the government”.

It is a disgrace that the Government not only feel able to wash their hands of the responsibility for providing this welfare policy, but are now refusing to rule out breaking the commitment they made in the 2017 Conservative manifesto to maintain free TV licences for the over-75s up to 2022. More than 5,000 households in my constituency are eligible for a free TV licence as they have someone over the age of 75. I am sure that those households will feel let down and unable to trust the Conservative Government if their free TV licence is taken away.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The BBC is under a lot of pressure in respect of new services, and has introduced BBC Sounds, on-demand services and social media services. These services are less likely to be used by the over-75s, but the Government expect the BBC to introduce these services and take away the benefit for over-75s or take the costs. This cannot stand. Does she not agree that the Government need to pay for this, because the BBC needs to continue to innovate?