Live Events: Government-backed Insurance

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve virtually under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on having brought forward this important debate this morning.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has spoken extensively on the importance of live music; in fact, listening to him talk about Glastonbury made me feel quite unambitious in life, in comparison with the passion that many people feel about their opportunities to perform. I understand that because, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned, nothing can replace live events. Most of us knew that before; we certainly know it after the past year of hell without them.

I also thank all members of the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who have spoken expertly on the issue of an insurance scheme. The Select Committee has done very good work on this, and I am sure the Minister will be looking very closely at what its members have said this morning, in addition to the extensive evidence that it has provided to the Government.

I want to ask one further thing on that, and then make two more brief points before we hear from the Minister. It does seem that the Treasury is the decision maker here, so I wonder why we have a Minister from DCMS before us this morning, not a Treasury Minister. It feels as though, on a number of issues, DCMS is essentially communicating messages from the Treasury, and it would be good to hear directly from the horse’s mouth.

On other support, Members also mentioned the way in which some Treasury schemes have not suited well those in the creative and cultural industries. I really hope that point has been heard and understood, not only by DCMS Ministers but by those in the Treasury; it would be good to hear directly from them on that.

Secondly, we know that events are crucial to our economy. Members also spoke this morning on the size, scale and centrality of creative industries generally, and the events industry specifically, in the UK. We currently have trial events taking place, and it would be good if the Minister could say a little bit more about the process for those, particularly as, again, some of the issues there will not necessarily be handled completely by DCMS; there will obviously be input from the Cabinet Office and potentially the Department of Health and Social Care. Will she talk about the process for reviewing those, who will be involved and who will be the decision makers in Government on the steps to move forward? Will the Minister also commit to an open-book approach? Will we be able to see and review evidence that the Government collect, because that would be helpful in building confidence in the process? A huge number of uncertainties face the events industry—as Members already covered; I will not go over them again—so making sure that we are all able to work together will be helpful.

Finally, we need to make sure that the current economic turbulence driven by covid does not reinforce any of the pre-existing structural inequalities that exist in the United Kingdom, whether that is labour force inequalities—unemployment statistics out today show the hugely disproportionate impact of covid on jobs for younger people—or places in our country that previously experienced deindustrialisation or other economic disadvantage. Several Members highlighted the important role that the live events sector plays in those places; many of the jobs that we are talking about are good jobs in areas that really need them. It would be terrible if the virus exacerbated any of the structural inequalities that previously held our country back, particularly over the past 10 years. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Work and Pensions and others to make sure that it is not only the Treasury that understands that its schemes and programmes need to better fit the creative industries?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope she listened carefully to all that those Select Committee members have said and will let us know how decisions on this will be taken from here.

Spring 2021 Covid-19 Road Map

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship virtually, Mr Mundell. I also thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), who introduced the debate so well on behalf of all of those who signed the five petitions. It is a tribute to the parliamentary petitions system that triggered the debate that people do participate. They want to sign petitions and draw issues to our attention, and he captured the importance of that well. It is a good thing that we in the House of Commons develop the system so that, even under these extremely challenging and different circumstances, the public can be heard and have their say. As was just said, even if people’s instincts are different, everyone can be heard and everyone can participate, and that is a good thing.

My hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) gave good descriptions of one of the petitions and the frustration that many of us have felt about being unable to be physically active during the lockdowns in the past year. It has been the most frustrating time and we all want that to change. Though many of these measures have been necessary, there is no doubt that they have been deeply frustrating for many people, as the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) also explained well.

I will take a few moments to talk through the Opposition’s priorities and to acknowledge the frustration that people have felt, whether that is about gyms or going for a round of golf, with their normal lives having been massively interrupted. We all understand that it has been necessary because it is a matter of life and death, but we should not underplay the cost that has been borne. I have a few questions for the Minister as to how we will help the country recover.

No one understands this more than me. The football team that I play with here in the Wirral, the Wirral Valkyries, are regularly counting down the days until we can get back out on the pitch again. All of us know that being physically active in our lives is extraordinarily important.

With regard to the restrictions, the Opposition have set out the approach that we felt the Government ought to take. First, we should follow the science. This has been a challenging period in which all of us have had to get our heads around reading the epidemiology and what that might lead us to need to do. We were slow to act twice in our response to the epidemiology, and that should be a lesson learnt. No doubt when we get to the eventual inquiry, I am sure the science will be pored over, and at what point decisions could have been taken for better impact.

I pay tribute to all gym owners and those operating leisure facilities up and down the country who have been right on top of the need to keep their facilities safe, when they have been able to open. To help them open quickly, they have left no issue unturned when it comes to making sure that gyms and other leisure services are safe—as much as they can be—even in spite of complications with things like the way in which gyms are ventilated. I know that they have all worked really hard.

For that reason, the second priority is that we should all be honest with people. As politicians, we all know that there are hard choices to make. In previous debates in Westminster Hall, we have discussed such issues and where some of the choices lie. Whatever a person’s political feelings, we want everyone in the country to understand that none of this is easy. I do not think that anyone thinks that the choices are simple or straightforward. In order to help people understand why the decisions are being or have been taken, we need a level of transparency.

This is where I want to talk about the future. One thing that we have learnt from the covid crisis is that some of our public health data is not as good as it could be. I do not think that we understand the state of physical and mental wellbeing in the country as well as we might. We have lots of survey information, but understanding the health picture of the country and how people want to help themselves be fitter will help us make a plan for the future, to deal with the consequences of some of the lockdowns, which people have mentioned, such as the knock-on impact on physical and mental health.

Our fourth priority is families. In earlier debates, again, we have spoken about the importance of participation in sport and physical activity, particularly for our children. Over the past year there has been a level of frustration as we have tried to ensure that children have been able to participate in sport as soon as possible. That is an important priority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South spoke of gyms as wellbeing hubs, and this is where we need to move the discussion on. Some of the people who signed the petitions want to see our country have a better state of health and wellbeing. Members have mentioned “lifestyle choices.” I do not know about others, but I would question that language. We are learning more and more about the connection between mental and physical health, and about some of the facilities around us being able to help us have a better level of physical health, which gives us better mental health, as well as having good mental health in a way to support our physical health. We are learning more and more about the interconnection of the two.

In order to improve the health of the nation, we need a national plan as we come out of the lockdown, to address many of the concerns that have been expressed. I therefore want to finish with a few questions for the Minister, to start that conversation. First, what steps are the Government taking, particularly in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to properly understand the underlying state of public health, particularly around the connection between physical and mental health? Obesity strategy after obesity strategy do not seem to have got us very far. How are we really going to understand the underlying issues?

Secondly, in doing that, will we be able to join up our fractured mental health system? Too many people get into a crisis because they do not get the early support to make sure that their mental health is as good as it can be. We previously experimented with physical fitness by prescription, but that seems to have dropped off the agenda. Will the Minister say where he thinks we are headed, in policy terms, on that front?

Thirdly, what steps are the Government taking to boost participation? The Sport England strategy released at the beginning of this year prioritises participation and dealing with some of the issues that lockdown has created, but will the Minister say what the Government want to prioritise now, particularly around social and economic disadvantage, which we know has a significant impact on people’s health? We still find challenges in women’s participation, particularly black women and those from other diverse backgrounds, and also for people with disabilities, who face significant challenges in making sure that they are able to be physically fit and healthy in the way that other people are.

Finally, Members mentioned people’s housing having an impact on their physical fitness. As some petitioners mentioned, that ability to be outside and enjoy open green space is highly important. Whether it involves understanding what the data tells us about public health and the role of physical activity in that, or whether it involves exercise by prescription or some of those planning issues, we need that joined-up plan for public wellbeing. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

British Library Board (Power to Borrow) Bill

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Friday 12th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I shall speak only briefly on my private Member’s Bill. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. In relation to the point about whether the British Library Board or the executive committee want these powers, I can assure him that they do. It is also worth pointing out that what is proposed here is simply to align the British Library with all the other similar arm’s length museums, galleries and others that currently sit under the auspices of the Department. The Bill does not propose anything different from what various other similar institutions have. That is a very important point.

The third thing to say is, simply, that this is not about the Government reducing the grant in aid. In fact, in the Budget of March 2020, the Government gave £13 million to the British Library to help it expand. This money is not just for books or for the British Library in London; it is to help the levelling-up agenda all over the country. It is to help the business and intellectual property centres, which help thousands of individuals and successful start-up businesses. The success rate of those businesses—the proportion that are in existence three years after being started—is about 90%, double the national average, showing the value of those business and IP centres.

That is the sort of thing that this money is for. This is simply about aligning the British Library with all sorts of other institutions that sit under the auspices of the Department. I really believe that this is a sensible, practical measure that will help not just the British Library but communities up and down the country.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

I commend all those involved in the Bill. I will just say, on behalf of the Opposition, that we fully support it and agree with the comments just made by the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami).

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

I am pleased that we are at this point with the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). As he said, it is absolutely the case that the Bill seeks solely to put the British Library on the level playing field that it deserves to be on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) raises two points. Putting an expiry date on the powers proposed in the Bill would risk taking up further parliamentary time, which we all know is valuable, but it would also entrench the inequality that we are trying to resolve. The idea that the British Library’s power to borrow would be subject to review when none of the other arm’s length bodies are subject to the same review does not seem to me to be in that spirit of fairness. Of course my hon. Friend raises entirely reasonable points about the burden on the public purse of any borrowing, but it seems to me only fair that we take that as a whole rather than trying to impose separate conditions on the British Library.

The British Library is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, absolutely enthusiastic about the powers that the Bill would give it, it is enthusiastic about the opportunity to use them, and it is enthusiastic about the practical developments that that might bring, be it broader access digitally to its own artefacts or broader engagement with the community. That is currently constrained by the inequality that we see today. That is not fair on the British Library, but more to the point, it is not fair on the British public. It is important that we try to address the legislative barrier that currently and inexplicably prevents the British Library from having the same freedom to borrow that its fellow national museums and galleries enjoy.

Operational freedoms introduced in 2013 have given our national cultural institutions, including the British Library, greater autonomy to make decisions independently and greater flexibility over their income, helping them to innovate and continue their expert work. Flexibility and innovation will be more important than ever as we recover from the effects of the pandemic.

The British Library is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch accepted, subject to a host of scrutiny already. The Bill does not propose to subject it to any greater scrutiny than exists already for other arm’s length bodies. While I agree with him that we should pay close attention to those conditions, I hope that he will agree that imposing further specific conditions on the British Library when we would like, I think, to have the efficiency of dealing with all arm’s length bodies as one is not a sensible approach. While I understand the sentiments behind his amendments, I hope—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern [V]]

I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) in thanking all those who have worked hard on this Bill. I also thank all those who work in our libraries and the British Library—they serve our country so brilliantly.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. We just heard from the Secretary of State how very well the Government have done through this crisis, and he said how much we could look forward to the Government—to the Tories—uniting the country in times ahead. To use an old-fashioned northern expression, “I’ve heard ducks quack before”. The Secretary of State joined this House in 2015, so while I think I am right in saying that he is two years older than me, I have been around this Budget roundabout 13 times to his seven. That is nothing that I am proud of—I have spent my time in opposition and he has not—but, that said, he did work for David Cameron during 2012, so I am sure that he has experience enough to know the golden rule of Budgets: never tax anyone’s pasties.

Despite the exceptional context that the Secretary of State talks of, despite the many Budgets that he and I have heard in this House, the question at every Budget is the same. It is the question at the heart of all economics—who has what and is it fair, and what will this Budget do to change the prospects for the people of the United Kingdom? Every time the Chancellor gets to the Dispatch Box, that question is the same. So when I look back over those 13 Budgets that I have seen, I think, “What have the Tories done to make our country fairer?” They removed regional development agencies and slashed local authority funding, and now they complain that the economy is unbalanced. They ran down social security only to realise that when people with higher incomes needed it at the last minute, they had brought it to breaking point. They wasted years spending money on a costly reorganisation of our health service that they now say they want to reverse. Child poverty is high and rising. Food bank use is through the roof and we are staring down the barrel of an unemployment crisis. Economically, it has been a decade of misrule and now this Budget is on top of all that. Despite all that the Secretary of State says, I suspect that in the long term it will be neither use nor ornament at this time of economic peril, because this is a diabolical record, and I regret very much the choices that the Conservative party has made over the past decade. There is only one thing I regret more than its choices, and that is the failure of my party so far to replace it.

I have said that the economic questions remain the same year after year, but the economy moves on and, therefore, so must the answers. To make our economy and our country fairer, we need to understand the situation that we face. It is dire, as a result of both the pandemic and the pre-existing flaws arising from a decade of Conservative Government. Unemployment for young people has increased by 13% and 1.7 million people are currently unemployed, and the Bank of England predicts that this will continue to rise throughout this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that the scarring effect of the virus a year from now will be that the pandemic lowers output in the medium term by 3% relative to its pre-pandemic path, and that is after the existing problems created by our exit from the European Union. This is the backdrop to my 13th Budget and the Secretary of State’s seventh—a lost decade of growth, with us now facing economic challenges that surpass even the crisis of a decade ago.

So what do the Government do? Well, finally, we have long overdue confirmation of the extension to furlough and vital business support, yet there is still a planned cut to universal credit, just at the very time that unemployment is predicted to spike. Also, less spoken of are the £14 billion cuts planned to public services for the rest of the Parliament and a 4% hit to our economy, as I said, due to our exit from the European Union. That is before we get to the things that they appear to have forgotten, including that missing pay rise for our nurses and cleaners in the NHS and the long-term plan for social care that the Chancellor remembered the day after. There was really very little help on the employment front either. As we know, just 2,000 young people have started their kickstart apprenticeship, when the Tories promised us 120,000.

Businesses in the UK have been challenged over the past 12 months in unimaginable ways, from total shutdown to recreating themselves overnight. UK business organisations, along with those in our social economy, have by and large proved themselves to be brilliantly creative and dynamic as well as having a keen interest in the public health imperative that we have all had to focus on. This Budget does far too little to support those businesses that really need it and too little to plan for the future. If a Government did get the framework right, the innovation and creativity of UK businesses would be able to thrive.

This poor lack of innovation is exemplified nowhere more clearly than in our brilliant creative industries. In this Budget, the Government have fallen well short of creating an environment for growth for creative and cultural businesses, which altogether contributed £225 billion to the UK in 2018, accounting for 12% of the economy. It is the part of the economy for which the Secretary of State is supposed to be responsible. The culture recovery fund, which he trumpets, saves buildings, but it does not do enough to save jobs and support the growth that is needed in creative industries across the whole country. The Secretary of State gave the game away when he said that the fund is there to protect the “Crown jewels”. There is no need for me to add to the extensive commentary on the royal family today. However, the Secretary of State’s comments reveal an obsession with that which we have inherited, rather than the demonstrable opportunities in the next generation.

The adjustments made to the self-employment income support scheme were not good enough either. Bringing newer entrants to the industry into the scheme was welcome, but analysis by the Musicians’ Union suggests that around 23% of its members are still left out in the cold. I understand from Prospect trade union that, while the fifth round of the scheme may run from May to September, it only provides three months’ worth of support, which means that the effect is identical to the scheme running out at the end of July. This will affect many industries, but it is particularly acute in the creative industries, in which it may take until much later in the year for normal work patterns to resume and in which two thirds of people are self-employed.

This is all a mistake because the creative industries deserve to be taken seriously. In growth terms, as we said the day before the Budget, the creative industries were up 7.5% in 2018 on the previous year, meaning that growth in the sector is five times larger than growth in the UK economy as a whole. That is a huge amount of potential that the Government simply have not met. Instead, they decided to spend £25 billion of taxpayers’ money on a tax incentive for businesses to invest in plant and machinery. It is pretty obvious that many of our newer businesses simply will not be helped by that. It is no bad thing at all to invest, but we are facing an unemployment crisis, and many small businesses are struggling to stay afloat. I think it is fair to ask the Government whether this tax cut will really get the money where it needs to be. How they will ensure that money is not spent on investments that were already planned?

If the Government do finally agree on a fundamental change to our tax system, undoing much of the direction of travel of previous Chancellors—and has anyone checked if George Osborne is okay?—where is the proper review that is needed? There appears to be a view across the House that the losses and gains from the pandemic have been hugely unequal, so what steps have the Government taken to ensure that billions of pounds are not handed over to global logistics companies whose profits have already soared during the pandemic? Whether it is the culture recovery fund or this tax relief, there seems to be a pattern: the Tories handing cash to the already lucrative.

Worse still, what if some of the most important structural changes needed in our economy, which this Budget should be an opportunity to address, cannot be sorted out by these sorts of tax incentive? In fact, on International Women’s Day, could somebody explain to me how this tax cut for plant and machinery will unleash all women’s entrepreneurship? How does focusing on tax breaks for big firms solve the underlying structural issue of poor childcare, which is one of the biggest drags on the well-documented productivity problem in the UK? I worry that the Help to Grow scheme will be about as successful as kickstart and restart have been in reality.

It is not just that. The Government seem to be missing the point of the pandemic entirely: that a strong economy requires a healthy workforce. The Secretary of State seems not to realise that we need a comprehensive plan for public wellbeing. That means supporting public services properly and giving every person in the UK a chance to improve their quality of life.

We know that a healthy population is an important input to a strong economy. Labour councils are already leading the way, with Coventry City Council giving residents free and discounted access to cultural and leisure facilities. The council specifically argued that it was vital for women’s participation, and particularly for those from lower-income backgrounds. In the local elections, councillors are putting health and wellbeing right at the centre of their manifestos. For example, the Labour party in Lancashire launched a manifesto that includes free swimming for residents over the age of 50 and under the age of 16. Given all that we have been through, Labour in Lancashire is putting health and wellbeing at the heart of future economic prospects. To make our economy work well, we need DCMS to focus on a big, bold plan for national wellbeing, which is something that the Government have either forgotten or just do not understand.

Something else that has been forgotten is the fact that our economy is inextricably linked to the global economy. Not only have our financial services led the world, for good or ill, but so have our music, fashion, art and publishing industries. Creative industries exported £36 billion worldwide in 2018 because they are part of the modern services economy that the UK brings to the world. When pandemics hit, our open economy is going to be affected long after everyone is vaccinated at home, which is why, if we really want to rescue our economy, we need a much better plan than cutting aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

It gets worse. In addition to the year of hell that the pandemic has been for many businesses is the underlying cause of the disruption and damage to our economy that will last long after the pandemic: our exit from the European Union. As I said before, our country may be an island economy, but it is also an integral part of the continent of Europe. The project of those on the hard right and the far right—to blame European politicians for every ill that this country has ever faced, just as the Prime Minister did for years in his Telegraph column, with little connection to reality—is having a real impact on our economy across the board. Organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses highlight its impact on small firms, whose profits are being wiped out as a result of post-Brexit costs.

The creative industries about which the Secretary of State and I have spoken have been hit hugely by Brexit, as well as by covid. The Government show no show sign at all that they will fix the problems. Those in the fashion industry warn that restructuring is necessary due to the industry’s European and global supply chains and the disruption that our leaving the EU has caused, but where is the help? Musicians and performers are unable to tour freely in Europe—a vital stepping-stone for many emerging artists and a key part of a crucial industry. All that because the many are having to pay the price for the ideological obsession of the few.

As the journalist Rafael Behr wrote recently, Brexit has been turned into a “perpetual grievance” machine. Let me give an example. The Secretary of State got himself into hot water by asking the fashion roundtable to use its star quality to influence our European partners—whom the Conservative party has so successfully hacked off. Was that an honest acknowledgment that there just is not anyone in his Department who has star quality of their own? Or was it, on this International Women’s Day, an admission that the Tories see the fashion and creative industry not as a serious, leading industry that puts clothes on the backs of millions around the world but rather as a flighty and insubstantial part of our economy in which women are too busy doing the stitching to be consulted about the future of our economy? Is that how the Tories see us?

It is not lost on me that here we are, on International Women’s Day, debating the Budget—the money in people’s pockets and whether our kids have a decent life or not— and many of the speakers are men, as is often the case in this House. Who can say why that is? I can certainly tell the Secretary of State that I am not the only woman in the country who is a little bit fed up of the Prime Minister’s male-dominated Cabinet. We are fed up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in his Budget, forgot to mention social care, in which thousands of women work. The Budget also does little or nothing for the creative industries, in which thousands of women also work and which the Secretary of State dismissed in such pathetic terms.

The women of this country are not very enamoured of the Prime Minister, but that was true long before this Budget. We do not want his patronising arms around the nation. We want work that pays as much as men’s, we want to share the care of our children and older people so that we can have the same status as men at work, and we want people to listen when we speak. And before anyone says anything, yes I know that the Tory party has had two women Prime Ministers while the Labour party has had none, to which I would say yes, that is a serious criticism and it should be taken seriously. That is why Labour women will keep fighting, forever and a day, for women to be elected to the highest offices of state, not in order to get one woman on a pedestal but to achieve for all women the systematic undoing of the assumptions and strictures that make us less than we are.

In the context of this debate, the assumption consistently revealed by the Tories is that the work women do, from care to creativity and culture, is worth less than the work men do. That assumption—that revealed preference, as the economists would say—is wrong, and it will be the priority of Labour Governments to undo it, alongside the many other aspects of this Government’s economic policy, which, after a lost decade of growth, is nowhere near up to setting our country on the right path. The winners from this Budget will be those who are already comfortable enough. The losers will be the small businesses whose prospects have been shut down temporarily by the pandemic or permanently by Brexit, the children struggling after a decade of disaster for family benefits, and every woman, man and child whose ambitions are not well served by a Tory Chancellor more interested in his own.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who said a great deal in such a short time. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

If there is one person who truly appreciates the creative industries in this country, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that he has not created employment support schemes that are remotely suitable for the creative industries, and I know that the Tory post-Brexit agreement really screws creative professionals and their ability to get work, but he does love his videographer, and his Instagram account is testament to his adoration of professional photographers. His Twitter feed tells the world how much he appreciates his stylist, and I heard that his Pinterest is extensive. Good luck to him, I say. Some people want substance from their policies, but it is absolutely clear that the Tory party would prefer a shiny veneer.

This debate comes the day before the Budget, which will be a fiscal event that should announce a much-needed, overdue continuation of business support and help for families through this unprecedented time. That should be a given; it should have been done by now. Today’s Budget trail, which coincidentally came out the same day as this cross-party general debate, tells us that the Government have found some more cash for the culture recovery fund. Support is welcome, but as Member after Member has said, that funding saves buildings, not jobs. It is a year since many freelancers have had any income at all. As Members have said, freelancers have been able to apply for some of the funding in Wales and Scotland. Can the Minister say what consideration he has given to a similar approach in England?

What is really lacking is a plan for how our country will earn a living after all we have been through. We need businesses that are fast-growing and offer good-quality jobs, and for that we need the creative and cultural sectors, because they are big and growing. As a whole, DCMS businesses, excluding tourism, contributed £224 billion to the UK in 2018—12% of the economy. Creative businesses exported £36 billion-worth worldwide, and in gross were up 7.5% on the previous year, meaning that growth in the sector is five times that of the British economy as a whole. Important as they are, manufacturing flatlined, and financial services actually fell. Creative businesses are a growing part of our economy.

Tomorrow should be about the future and how we will create the framework to make sure the UK can start growing again. That is why the economic story of creative industries is so important. We have heard from colleagues from right across the country—from Cardiff, Belfast, Barking, Clacton, Coventry, Sheffield, Hull, Batley, Blaydon, Sunderland, Warley, Manchester, Salford, Pontypridd and many more. It is clear from all those contributions that the role of the creative industries and their ability to make life good is not a phenomenon unique to London and the south-east, as the cultural and economic dominance of those areas suggests. We want a plan for the growth of creativity that serves the whole of the UK.

Recent bids to the Government ahead of the spending review showed that West Yorkshire, the west midlands, Liverpool city region and Manchester city region all have cultural plans for their economies, but they are being ignored by the Government, and it is hard to see why. It is not that we want to move cultural and creative economies from London to elsewhere; rather, we want to enable growth where local leaders are clearly crying out for it. The potential is there; we just need to make the most of it.

The glaringly obvious plan that would serve our country so well has been ignored. Too often, the pandemic response has been made up of piecemeal, last-minute decisions. This week is a case in point. People still do not know how long they will be furloughed for and for how long they can be. The industry faces a VAT cliff edge, and freelancers are still uncertain about whether the Budget will finally offer them some much-needed support after a year of hardship.

The truth is that, from listening to the Secretary of State, it was clear from the very beginning that there was no plan to rebalance our economy in the way that city region leaders would like. The Secretary of State gave the game away. All their hotch-potch announcements were aimed at one thing: saving the Crown jewels, as the Secretary of State himself said. It does not matter if someone runs a creative business in Newcastle or Bristol. Unless they run a well-endowed cultural institution that happens to be a short walk from this building, they are nobody’s priority, and it shows. The Government have had a year to finesse their policy responses. Membership organisations and trade unions such as the Musicians’ Union, Equity and the Writers’ Guild all stand ready to help, but too often are ignored.

We heard from Members across the House that every opportunity for creative workers is essential, but the Government actively took away opportunities and made matters worse when they failed on their promises to ensure that creative workers would not face unnecessary bureaucracy and barriers to touring in Europe. We heard throughout the debate that that is an essential step. The Government say they want to fix the post-Brexit situation. They simply must make it happen and we have seen too little progress.

That leads me to my final question for Ministers on the gap between reality and what they say. The question I really want to ask the Secretary of State and the Minister here today is this: what do they think their Department is for anymore? When it comes to financial support for creatives, their only job is passing on messages from the Treasury. When it comes to touring after Brexit, the Minister’s job is to pass messages on from the Home Office. When it comes to covid, they just pass messages on from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, or maybe it is now the recently ennobled Brexit negotiator—who really knows? The fact is that the DCMS has been reduced to the Government’s equivalent of a voicemail service—they just pass on the message. Let us be honest: too often DCMS Ministers are just not in charge of anything.

There is one final point I really want to make. The Government’s road map for unlocking our freedoms gives a series of “not before” dates that help us to plan for the best-case scenario. We all want to be back in theatres, to be part of a crowd again. Many of us long for the day when we can walk down the road to a football stadium and feel the electricity of that first tackle flying in. We long for the chance to hear a singer lift up their microphone and pierce the atmosphere with a ringing sound. Before the pandemic, I thought I was getting old. Now, if somebody, for example my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), offered me the chance to go for an evening out, you would never get me off the dancefloor. The pandemic has robbed us of not just a fast-growing industry but, as I have said, everything that makes life good. All the things that make life enjoyable are gone, so when we get them back—when we get galleries, festivals, music and art back—I truly hope that the country we choose to build from this point can include everyone in the happiness of creativity, and can give everyone that sense of something beyond the daily grind. I hope the lives we have lived during this covid pandemic make us all the more joyful at having culture back in our life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I was very pleased that the excellent aerospace museum in my hon. Friend’s constituency received money from the culture recovery fund in the first round. It is a wonderful showcase of world-class British engineering, and I can confirm that organisations in receipt of grant funding from the first round of the CRF were eligible to apply to the second round. I am sure that the Aerospace Bristol museum will get a fair hearing as he requests, but it is important to say that all decisions on CRF grants are made by our independent arm’s length bodies, which are committed to a transparent and robust decision-making process.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) just now—happy birthday to her—I think I heard the Minister say that a third of self-employed people in the creative sector were not able to access the self-employment scheme, minus those supported by extra schemes made available by Arts Council England, which I think he said was about £47 million of support. Can he calculate for us how many people in the creative sector have been forgotten by the support schemes so far? Will he say what representations he has made to the Treasury to aid that remaining number of people?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady. To clarify, I said that over two thirds of people who are self-employed in the country have been eligible for self-employment income support. Within the arts, entertainment and recreation sector, more than 60,000 people applied for and have received SEIS funding in phase 3. Some 76,000 did so in phase 1, and 72,000 did so in phase 2. As I said, Arts Council England has given additional support to the tune of £47 million of awards to individuals through non-CRF funds already.

UK Musicians: EU Visa Arrangements

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and there is quite a lot we can do. The sector needs clarity and certainty, and because the situation with every member state is different, that will be tricky to provide. We therefore need to make it as simple, easy and clear as we can for them to tour and go about their business, and that is what we are setting about to do.

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about insurance, which we understand is a barrier to many live music events taking place later in the year. We are in discussions with our colleagues in the Treasury about that at the moment.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As we have heard, the Government still blame the EU, so, to get this issue straight, will the Minister make clear what exactly the EU proposed, when it was proposed and whether the UK offer was more than the standard visa policy?

The Minister said that the EU offer was a broad offer not consistent with taking back control of our borders. Will she go further and explain specifically when that was turned down? Finally, so that we can all be clear, will she place in the Library of the House of Commons all correspondence between the UK and the EU and all correspondence between UK Government Departments on this issue?

What matters is what happens now. A third of the creative industry is self-employed, and the situation is a massive kick in the teeth for a group of workers who are already having the worst year in living memory. What representations has the UK made to resolve the situation? What meetings are scheduled? Will the UK still rely on mode 4 exemptions, even though doing so is without precedent? Does the Minister agree that the resolution to the situation requires a supplementary agreement?

The Minister must go further and spell out exactly what the proposal is from the UK to resolve the situation. When musicians and creative people tour, they do not just power up an economy that is massively important to us; they represent us all on the global stage, so we must get this resolved now.

[Caroline Dinenage]

I am happy to talk the hon. Lady through the situation. The EU tabled texts regarding short-stay visa-free travel during the negotiations, and embedded in the proposal was a declaration that would have covered a very small number of paid activities. With regard to artists, it covered ad hoc performances. Of course, the declaration was non-binding and did not address things such as technical or support staff. Crucially, it did not cover work permits, which EU member states can put in place unilaterally. Furthermore, the proposals would have enshrined permanent visa-free short stays for all current and future EU citizens in the agreement, and that is not compatible with our manifesto commitment to take back control of our borders.

Our proposals were based on the views of the music industry and would have been mutually beneficial across the EU and the UK. They would have allowed musicians and support staff to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily without needing work permits. The EU did not propose and would not accept a tailored deal for musicians, artists and their support staff to tour across the EU and the UK.

As I have said, the UK’s door remains open should the EU change its mind. We recognise that the outcome means that some additional requirements will need to be met for the sector, and we are working with the sector as fast as we can to put in place the support and information that it needs. Labour Members voted for this deal in the knowledge of what it involved, including the end of free movement. What they are asking us to go back and renegotiate now is exactly what we negotiated at that time. They cannot have it both ways; they need consistency. What the sector needs more than anything at the moment is certainty, and that is what we are working to provide.

Gambling and Lotteries

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the main measures that the Government have announced today, and I certainly welcome the beginning of this process of review and reform. Many Members across the House and in the other place have worked very hard indeed to get us to this place. I will not mention individuals specifically, not least because I am sure they will speak for themselves shortly, but we owe them a debt for bringing this issue to the fore. I thank all of them, because when people work across the House and across party political barriers in pursuit of the public interest, it is Parliament at its best.

This is only the beginning of the process to get the reforms that we need on gambling, so it is disappointing that the Government have taken more than a year to launch this review, during which time we know there are still people who may be suffering. Gambling addiction is highly serious, and we know that we have not got the right support in place. So the delay has a cost, which is why we need to move forward together and swiftly now. What we need is fit-for-purpose regulation which can keep up with the changing nature of gambling online, both on the smartphones that we all carry and in the environment around us all the time. We believe that the law in this area should be approached from a public health perspective to protect the vulnerable and particularly children and young people—I think the Minister would accept that—but to allow others who choose to do so to gamble safely. The Minister mentioned that UK gambling legislation is some 15 years old and it is hard to quantify the technological change that we have all experienced during that time. If somebody had told me in 2005 precisely what the phone in my pocket would have the capacity to do by this point, even I would have been shocked. We need to bring the legislation up to date. There is not a moment to lose.

Millions of people enjoy gambling in a safe way, but, as I have said, given the speed of change, vulnerable people should be protected. Age verification must be taken seriously.

The pace of technological change has wider ramifications. Apps, games and online advertising within apps have shown the dangers when we are not able to future-proof legislation. Will the Minister confirm that the review will address not just problems that we know of now, but that we will use the opportunity to try to anticipate future changes? That will not always be possible, but we should at least attempt to do so.

In the review, we would like the Government to adopt the following approach, particularly in considering the legislation that we need. We know from the pandemic that public health must come first, and that is my first question to the Minister. Will he confirm that we will be taking a public health approach in the review?

Secondly, of course people are free to choose what they wish to do in a free country, but will the Minister confirm that the Government take their responsibility to protect people from harm seriously and that the review will attempt to quantify that harm so that we can target the right measures effectively to reduce it over time?

Thirdly, the legislation must be evidence-based. I do not think anyone in this House is any longer a sceptic of experts, but just to make sure, could the Minister confirm that public health experts will be able to contribute fully and transparently, so that people will be able to understand the evidence that the Government rest on?

Fourthly, all towns across the country should be able to enjoy the benefit of having a sports club at the heart of their community. Many rugby league clubs, football clubs and other sports have long-standing relationships with gambling companies. Will the Minister take those relationships into consideration? We are expecting another review—a fan-led review of football—and I do not think it makes a lot of sense to commence the gambling review without that football review alongside it. Where the issues interconnect, we can handle them both together. Will the Minister bring forward the fan-led review of football to start without further delay?

Finally, on consumer protection, companies operating for financial gain should not be able to exploit anybody, particularly the young and vulnerable, so will he make sure that consumers have better rights in this area? Will people have access to their own data—I am thinking of where people are targeted online with adverts and so on? Will the review also look at the unlicensed operators, who are one of the most worrying aspects in this area?

We welcome the review. We want to see it happen in a way that is collaborative across both sides of the House and among all stakeholders in the country, because that is the best way to make sure that it is a success. Many people in this country enjoy gambling. Everybody has the right to spend their own money enjoying themselves. However, where a harm is clear, the Government have a duty and responsibility to tackle it.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady for the tone of her response and for welcoming the review. She is absolutely right that the measures in the review and the scope of the review have been supported by hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber and many individuals have campaigned on these issues for a long period of time.

On timing, it is important to recognise that we do not wait for the periodic reviews. We are not waiting for necessary future legislation. We have acted and will continue to act as and when necessary. Just this year, for example, we banned the use of gambling with credit cards. We have made further restrictions on VIP schemes. There is the mandatory participation in GamStop, for example, and the announcement today about the changes with national lottery is testament to the fact that the Government are willing and able to take action. There was also action just last year on fixed-odds betting terminals.

In terms of future-proofing, no Government can guarantee to future proof, but certainly the intent is for the scope to be broad and wide, recognising, for example, changes in technology and what that could mean for using information intelligently to identify potential problem gamblers, as well as looking at the scope of the Gambling Commission itself.

In terms of evidence, we are looking for evidence from all sources, including all those that the hon. Lady suggested—from health and from academics. We welcome the participation of anybody willing and able to participate in this review with evidence.

The hon. Lady made an important point on sport. As sports Minister—we both cover sport—I know the challenges that the sporting sector faces, so we need to make sure that any changes are proportionate. Indeed, as she knows, we intend formally to kick off the football governance review as soon as possible. Informally, it has already begun. Other areas such as redress and the black market will absolutely form part of the review.

Football Governance

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue, and to speak in this debate alongside so many expert Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who secured it. When I first entered the House in 2010, my football club, the champions Liverpool, were experiencing turbulence with their ownership, and my hon. Friend gave me expert advice. I was a new and, probably, naïve Member, but I have always listened to everything he says about football, particularly on the subject under discussion, not least because he, as my predecessor as the shadow sports Minister, wrote all of our policies in 2015, and they remain our policies. There is no better person in this House—[Interruption.] It would have been nice if we had won an election, but that is another story.

It would have been good, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said, if action had been taken on some of the policies when the cross-party coalition was formed all those years ago, but that did not happen. As the years have gone by, there has been no improvement in the regulation of football, despite that very clear cross-party coalition, which is represented in this debate. I think that we are now on the same page.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham also mentioned the importance of regulation in the women’s game and in disability and LGBT+ football, and I think that has cross-party support, too. We are on the same page now. All parties are calling for it and every manifesto in the December election mentioned it. Labour and Conservative Members are as one in wanting it to happen.

I will briefly summarise the arguments made by colleagues across the House, but before doing so I want to flag to the Minister the very important question the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) asked about the return of supporters to stadiums. This is a crucial moment for football supporters, for clubs and, indeed, for players, most of whom I think are desperate to have fans back in stadiums. We all understand the public health situation. I want to flag to the Minister—he will be thrilled to hear this—that I have sent him a letter with a number of questions. He cannot answer them now because he has not seen the letter, but I am sure we will discuss the issue in the coming days, as it is a very high priority.

We cannot talk about this subject without discussing the serious, detrimental impact that the covid-19 pandemic has had on football. Nobody looking at the current situation would conclude that we do not have a crisis on our hands. I repeat the point made by Members across the Chamber that football is not a business like any other. There are some in our country who still want to think that it is a business like any other, but they are not to be found here today and I do not think they would be found anywhere in the House of Commons. If we look at what has happened during the pandemic, we know that that is not the case. Football has a public purpose. We have seen that in the commitment that football and its community trusts have shown in their dedication to their local communities.

I think it was the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) who said that if a football club goes bust, it is not like any other shop. People do not just go and support another one. It is part of an individual’s identity—part of who they are. So many people in the country know that.

I have seen the vital work that football clubs do in my own borough of Wirral. All our grassroots clubs are amazing. They are led by our very own Tranmere Rovers, which is phenomenal. It was up and running with a food delivery service before anyone else had got their boots on, when we were all worried about people who were sheltering. I take great pride in all the work that it does and I know that everybody in the Wirral feels the same, but we are not alone. Everybody in our political world and our community would acknowledge the role that football clubs play in building that sense of identity and community spirit, and we have to make sure that these vital community hubs survive the crisis.

The other thing that covid has done to our national game is to reveal, if we did not know it already, the deep financial problems at the heart of the game’s structure. It has exposed the vacuum of constructive leadership across the game. We need to sort that out in the public interest, for the fans that the game serves. They deserve it. They put a lot of time and effort into supporting football and they deserve action from us.

I am worried that if we do not get on with that task quickly, the process will be kicked into the long grass and that would not be to the benefit of fans. The covid pandemic makes the fan-led review more urgent, not less. There is no point coming up with a temporary fix solution and then for all of us to be back here—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham will be bringing another debate—next year and the year after that and in five years’ time, and still be saying, “We have a problem at the heart of the finance and the governance of the national game.” Now is the right time to bring this forward and I would like to see the Government prioritise it now.

Hon. Members have mentioned all the clubs that have seen challenges. I know that you, Ms Fovargue, will no doubt be full of anxiety for the future of Wigan Athletic. It is an important and historic footballing institution in our region in the north-west of England. That situation has really made the case.

Other Members have talked about Bury. I visited Bury in December, for reasons that will be obvious. I was struck then at the absolute devastation at the idea of football not returning to Gigg Lane. There is, of course, the other side to the Bury story—AFC Bury—which shows how capable football fans are, given the chance.

We are now in a situation where clubs are losing between £30,000 to £100,000 per game on gate revenue in the lower leagues. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, they owe some £77 million in unpaid taxes, so the Government absolutely have skin in the game and need to sort this out. It has been reported that nearly 10 clubs are in danger of not being able to pay their staff on an ongoing basis.

We need a radical overhaul. Only a fan-led review can do it with the right people at its heart. I really think that the fans are capable of doing such a review and should be given a leading role.

The other reason why the fans and the public need a leading role is that if we think that this situation will be sorted out from within football, we would be engaging in a collective fantasy. It is not going to happen, partly for the reason that was discussed in response to the hon. Member for Bury North, who is no longer in his place. He said that the EFL or whoever the regulator is needs to sort it out, but as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, most football is run by the owners of the clubs, many of whom are not unrelated to the problem that we are trying to deal with.

This is not a unique situation. Football is not the only industry in our country we have ever had that has had such structural problems. In 2008, many people said that the problems within the banks were very complicated, which they were, that our banking sector is part of a global industry, which it is, and that it would be very challenging for the UK to deal with the re-regulation of the banking industry—but we did it. We took global institutions that had lost track of their local community purpose, and we put new regulations in place to make them much more stable. The question is this: for football, who is the Bank of England, and what is the counter-cyclical buffer that we need to require of clubs to stabilise them? Honestly, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the UK Government to do that.

This pandemic has profoundly shocked all aspects of our country—football as much as any other part—and we will all be judged on how we facilitate and encourage recovery. We have said that Members have been at this for a decade. For nearly 10 years we have been unable to resolve it. Finally, we are all on the same page and have the real possibility of absolute cross-party agreement. I believe it is incumbent upon us to just get on with it.

There are plans developed and written, not least by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which has done an excellent job of work. We just need to pick them up and run with them. We need political will for that, and I believe that between us the Minister and I could show that political will. In such debates, it is customary for the shadow Minister to give the Minister a long list of detailed questions. I do not have a long list of questions about this; I have just one. Conservative MPs promised the electorate a fan-led review of football in their 2019 manifesto. Where is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but we do need to start taking these baby steps toward opening as much of the economy, and of course football and sport, as possible. Logic would dictate that if we cannot open everything everywhere, then we should not open at all. Of course, we need to open as much as possible where we can, and support measures were announced last week for the national league. Fans have been able to attend non-elite sport for some time; we have allowed fans in stadiums and that will continue. On the elite side, I think as much as possible is absolutely key.

The deal between the EFL and the Premier League will be an important part of the dynamics of financial support. Nobody knows exactly where will be open when, or to what extent it will help with the financial circumstances, but I hope and have confidence that those elements and considerations will be part of the support package determined by the EFL and the Premier League; it must have some element of dynamism in that.

Another vital step is the resumption of grassroots sport from 2 December across all tiers, including the highest risk areas with some mitigation. Grassroots sport will return, and this will benefit the health and wellbeing of people right across the country. Further guidance on this will be published shortly.

While the pandemic has exacerbated some of the issues within football, it has not created them. Several hon. Members have expressed frustration about the groundhog day element to the discussion we are having today. It is absolutely clear that reform is needed in the national game, and has been needed for some time. That is why the Government are committed to a fan-led review of football governance. I will come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Wirral South in a moment.

The pandemic has highlighted the problems of football governance and finance—I have said repeatedly that the two are intrinsically linked. We cannot divorce governance from the finances, and I can confirm that we will look into this relationship as part of the governance review. The Secretary of State and I started this conversation last week, when we hosted a roundtable of key football stakeholders to discuss the future of the game. That discussion was lively and constructive, and it raised a number of ideas. Informally, therefore, the review of governance has already started, and this debate is contributing to it. We will announce the formal governance review in due course, but we certainly have no intention of kicking it into the long grass.

[Alison McGovern]

Is the Minister therefore able to put the review’s terms of reference into the public domain?

[Nigel Huddleston]

When we determine the terms of reference and the actual scope, we will obviously let the House know; it is vital that we do so. At this moment in time, we are considering all options and ideas. Many entities have come forward with suggestions that have good and bad elements and strengths and weaknesses, but it is important that we keep an open mind. I will certainly ensure that I am open to any constructive ideas as I go into the review. We will be working on the scoping, timing and remit of the review, and we will announce that in due course. I am well aware of the huge interest in it. As the hon. Lady said, all parties are keen to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend will forgive me for not pre-announcing, before we have it written anything down, the scope of the review or the outcome of it. What I can say is that I am personally very keen to make sure the scope of the review is broad. Any sensible, viable and reasonable ideas will be welcome. I know that is a somewhat obscure caveat, but we all know that some proposals can be unrealistic or bizarre. I suspect that any realistic and sensible proposal, looking at models that are deployed and adopted by other countries, for example, will form part of the review. I am coming into the review with a very open mind, as is the Secretary of State. I can assure my hon. Friend of that, but he will forgive me if I cannot really be pressed any further on the scope of the review before it is announced. I am well aware of the strength of feeling and the enthusiasm across the House to make sure that we get the scope determined as soon as possible.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his tolerance. Just to give those who are following this debate closely an idea on the terms of reference, the scope and the important issues that have just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), are we thinking of a month, two months, or after Christmas? Can the Minister give us an idea?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I sincerely appreciate and understand the hon. Lady’s persistence in this matter, but I have to say that we will be announcing the scope of the review in due course. She knows as well as anybody else the enthusiasm in this House for getting that review going as soon as possible.

On the issue of women’s football, which has been brought to the front during the coronavirus situation, there are many other long-term issues facing the game as well as governance. The roundtable that we had last week had a real focus on women’s football and tackling discrimination. The pandemic has shone a light on inequalities in football and, indeed, many other sports. The women’s game had built up significant momentum over the past few years, with both participation and interest growing rapidly, and the England Lionesses are inspiring a generation of girls, and indeed boys, including with their superb run-up to the World cup semi-finals last year. It is crucial that that momentum is not lost.

The women’s game must be central to any discussion on the future of the sport, and I was therefore glad that representatives of women’s football were able to attend the football roundtable we held last week, including Baroness Sue Campbell, the FA’s director of women’s football. I have also had a follow-up conversation with her and look forward to many further conversations. This week I am also meeting with Jane Purdon, the chief executive of Women in Football, to examine the issues facing the women’s game further.

Another issue that sadly remains to the detriment of the game is discrimination. There is still much progress to be made to improve diversity within football. I welcomed the announcement of the FA’s new football leadership diversity code last month, which is a step in the right direction to improve diversity and inclusion in both the men’s and women’s games. From the pitch to the boardroom, football must be welcoming and inclusive for all people from all backgrounds.

Sadly, players are still receiving abhorrent abuse online. I am absolutely clear that players should not be suffering from such abuse, and this Government are committed to taking action to tackle it. As set out in the online harms White Paper, we intend to establish a new law with a duty of care on social media companies towards their users, which will be overseen by an independent regulator. However, there is still a lot more to be done to rid football and society of this scourge. I welcome the football authorities’ commitment to tackling these issues at the roundtable and in other conversations, and will continue to work with them to deliver further action.

Very briefly, I will answer a couple of other points and then make sure the hon. Member for Eltham has plenty of time to make further comments. On the point raised about Project Big Picture, the Government’s response was that the timing was not right. We have said all along that any proposals coming up from football at the moment, if they are to be adopted by football, quite clearly and transparently need the support of the entire family—an issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe raised and that I will come to in a moment. The Football Supporters Association did not support that proposal, which I think was a great failing. However, all proposals have strengths and weaknesses, and we are open to many ideas. My hon. Friend raised an important point about the great challenges of the dynamics of football—whether we call it the football pyramid or the football family—and I think we all recognise that, while it is a family, or has elements of being a family, it is certainly a very dysfunctional one, as he articulated very clearly, hence the need for a significant review of governance.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) mentioned facilities. Of course, it is also a medium and long-term goal of the Government to significantly improve facilities, and not only for football but for many other sports across the country. I will take this opportunity to highlight the fact that Sport England has funds available to help enhance facilities; in fact, there is a live fund available at the moment, the Return to Play fund, to help with sports facilities, and I encourage grassroots clubs across the country to apply to it. It is relatively small amount, but, boy, will it make a difference.

My hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Bury South raised the particular circumstances in Bury, of which I am aware—we have had many regular conversations. They have asked for Government support. As well as rich tea and sympathy and enthusiastic support for Bury FC to sort its difficulties out, there are areas for potential Government support, but it would have to be in the remit of a broader offering. That could be a sport offering, in which we could get Sport England involved, or part of potential funds towards broader community development, recognising the important role that the club plays in the community, as my hon. Friends mentioned. I am well aware of the challenges faced by Bury FC at the moment, and I hope and have confidence that project phoenix will arise from the ashes. Bury deserves a very positive future.

My opposite number, the hon. Member for Wirral South, raised many points. She did not give me a full list, but I look forward to her letter and to further dialogue. I am very grateful for today’s wide-ranging debate. The Government have started the conversation on the important issues facing the future of football. Many Members have contributed to that discussion, and I am very appreciative of that. We remain absolutely committed to driving progress and will continue to work closely with all stakeholders in football to ensure a stable and strong future for our national game.

Covid-19: Restrictions on Gyms and Sport

Alison McGovern Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on introducing a very timely debate. I will speak about rugby. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) mentioned rugby league, but I will talk about rugby union. Both codes have their birthplace in my constituency.

Rugby union is normally played on Saturdays, and there was a pretty good win by England on Saturday, if you noticed, Mr Mundell, but the busiest day for a rugby club is Sunday. On Sunday mornings, hordes of young people take part in mini rugby, at the youngest levels often chasing the ball like bees around a honeypot. We often think of rugby as being a game of big men running into each other—

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Big people. Women play too.

[Mark Pawsey]

Forgive me, but I was going to draw attention to the fact that rugby is a sport for players of all sizes, and we have the mini game, the junior game, veterans, and women’s rugby, which is part of every club. When the principal rugby club in Rugby got into financial difficulty, it was the community game—the youngsters and the women’s game—that kept the club alive. Neil Back’s book “The Death of Rugby” draws attention to that.

Rugby is one of the most social of games, and among its values is loyalty to teammates. We sometimes see a bit of argy-bargy on the pitch, but after the game it is traditional to meet in the clubhouse and have a drink with players from the opposing side. Many players have missed the social side as much as they have missed the action on the pitch. The top tier of the game has resumed. We have a new international tournament and the premiership—all without spectators, although they are who the major clubs rely on for money. Local clubs, of course, rely tremendously on hospitality and bar takings. All levels of the game welcome the package announced by the Minister only last week, which is much appreciated.

I mentioned the different versions of the game. The one that I did not mention is golden oldies—the version played by the parliamentary rugby team. That game enables old people to continue playing. There is less contact, and with less contact we have a safer game. Many of the players in the parliamentary team are old players who know what to do but are not fit enough to do it. That is where gyms are important, because we go to the gym to make certain that we are able to do what we know we should be doing.

I have had a huge number of representations from members of gyms in my constituency. The biggest site, and the one I have had the most contact from, is the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Centre, which is owned by Rugby Borough Council, the local authority—I think another Member raised that issue. It is operated by Greenwich Leisure Ltd under the “Better” brand. That is where I have my membership.

Like many, I missed the gym during the first lockdown, and I have seen the substantial measures that the club has put in place to ensure that it is safe. There are booked timeslots, there are no showers or changing rooms available, the machines are set apart and sanitiser is readily available, with a trigger spray immediately adjacent to most machines. I see everybody honouring the etiquette of wiping down before and after use. Many constituents have told me how important going to the gym is to their mental, as well as physical, health. We welcome the measures that have been announced today, which will enable us to return on 3 December.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I will do my best to do that, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for leading the debate. She made a compelling argument, and as my very good hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned, it is good that she has already persuaded the Prime Minister. What more could we ask for? I thank all Members for their excellent contributions. We had a huge number of speeches from Members from all over the country, but I feel that Merseyside has been represented well this afternoon. It is possibly the sporting capital of the nation, so we would expect nothing less. [Interruption.] It is the home of the champions—just saying.

The debate is very important. It comes at a slightly odd moment in the day, after we have heard the Prime Minister announce in the Chamber some of the details of the next phase of our pandemic response, including the important details that we have heard Members discuss. However, we have yet to see how that will affect our daily lives in practice. None of us knows exactly which areas will be in which tiers, so we are still at a loss to understand how the announcement will affect our sporting and physical activity, and our constituents. That feeling is not new. Too often during this crisis, sport and the physical and mental wellbeing that comes from it has felt like an afterthought. That is not good enough. Every Member who has spoken today has said that it is a fundamental part of life for many of us in this country, so we need better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North and others have said, we need clarity from the Government on what is going to happen, not just at the end of this month and into December, but in the months to come.

I have questions for the Minister that I hope will help us to get clarity. First, while the return of sports and gyms is welcome, we know we are not out of the woods yet. What will happen to sport if further lockdowns are required in January? Will sport be cancelled again? Will team sports be cancelled? Will gyms be affected again?

As the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) asked, what is going on with spectators? We have seen the Secretary of State’s tweets saying that spectators will be back, but why have those limits to the number of spectators been chosen? I will not ask any further questions about this now, because we have not got time for all the questions that there will be in the coming days about the return of spectators to sport. The issue is very important to people, so I know we will return to it, potentially on Wednesday, when we will be talking about football.

Secondly, we need to consider the possibility of a third wave. We hope it will not happen. We all hope that the vaccines that are being worked on, and the mass-testing, which Merseyside has been trialling, are going to work, but if there is a third wave and we face a future lockdown, what will happen? A number of leisure centres up and down the country—they were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle)—have been shut since March. Many of them serve some of the most deprived communities in our country. Several have been mentioned in the House by hon. Members. Will the Minister commit to getting in touch with each of those Members, and to shifting heaven and earth to get those leisure centres open? I know he has allocated £100 million, but there is a difference between paying the money out and getting the doors open. Will he work with me to get the doors of those leisure centres open?

Thirdly, I mentioned mass-testing. Can the Minister say what conversations he has had with Mayor Steve Rotheram, Mayor Joe Anderson or the director of public health for Liverpool, Matt Ashton, to work out how we can apply the lessons coming out of mass-testing to sporting participation? That has to be part of the answer. Will he have those conversations with people in Liverpool?

Fourthly, sports have made huge changes to their coaching processes to make themselves covid-safe. Has that work been a waste, or will the Minister encourage sports and others to work with him on plan B? If we go back into lockdown, those covid-safe measures can help us keep sport open.

Fifthly and importantly, as several Members have asked, what conversations has the Minister had with the Schools Minister? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey said, our kids have lost out massively from this. Will the Minister explain what steps his Department is taking with the Department for Education to make sure that every child has sporting opportunities, if not before Christmas, then in the new year?

While we are talking about our children and the health of the nation, we need to look at the facts about what this virus has done, not just to those who are vulnerable, but to all of us. It has had an impact on the health of every single one of us, so, sixthly, what work has the Minister commenced with the Department of Health and Social Care to understand the physical health of the nation, to assess where sport can help, and to create a proactive plan?

The Conservative manifesto, published last December, included promises about sports facilities and an allocation of money. This is an issue close to my heart, Mr Mundell, so forgive me for banging on about it. Grassroots football is in dire need of better facilities. There were promises made in the Conservative manifesto about that. Can the Minister say where he is up to with that plan? As ever, we are a constructive Opposition, and if there are things that he wants to do to improve our sporting facilities, I, for one, will help him.

I come to my seventh and final question for the Minister. I hope to finish a little under time to give the Minister plenty of time to answer my questions fully. The right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells rightly said that the chief scientific officer and others can give broad advice, but not specific advice on the sporting issues that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is clear that we must go much further if we truly care about the health of the nation.

We need a proper plan. The future of our country, including its economy, happiness and longevity, depends absolutely on the wellbeing of us all. I ask the Minister—he has heard me ask this before; I am sorry to be boring about it—for a cross-Government, comprehensive plan for future wellbeing beyond the virus. Is he prepared to create that, and where is it? The Government have spent far too long running from crisis to crisis. Frankly, when it comes to sport—and everything else—we need much better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, but let us be “glass half full”, rather than “glass half empty” on this issue. We are at the point at which we are reopening sport. She and everybody knows that we have to respond to circumstances; it is ridiculous to ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make promises based on future hypothetical scenarios. We will base decisions on the information at the time, but we are now in a pattern. We have the vaccination coming. I am very confident that we are looking to a much more positive future, and that is what the Government will be focused on.

I pay tribute to the hard work and effort of so many sports bodies and clubs that have made their facilities as safe as possible and minimised the risk. It has involved a huge amount of work for them at not inconsiderable cost to ensure that social distancing, improved hygiene and other measures have been implemented to increase safety and lower the risk to their members and, indeed, their staff. I thank all those who have played their part, many of whom volunteered to go the extra mile for the work that has got us this far.

[Alison McGovern]

This is a simple question. The Minister thanks sports groups for their work, and I agree with him. If we have future lockdowns, either the work done to make sports covid-safe is good enough that they will not be included, or they will need to prepare to be included if there is a future lockdown. Which is it?

[Nigel Huddleston]

What everybody is going through at the moment—the sacrifices everybody is making—is precisely to reduce the chances of a future lockdown. I appreciate the work that everybody is doing.

The return of golf has had a tremendous amount of support from the public, as seen by over 250,000 people signing one of the petitions that led to the debate. Golf has great reach across society for all ages, backgrounds and abilities, bringing people together to experience the great outdoors. Like gyms, leisure centres and pools, the golfing community has made strenuous efforts to ensure that its players can take part safely. Once again, I pay tribute to its shared efforts. I say to the hon. Lady that every piece of effort and energy that has gone into making grounds and sports facilities safe has been well worth it. That is exactly why we have been able to make the progress we have so far. The Government recognised those efforts and the importance of golf by ensuring that golf courses were among the first facilities to reopen following the lockdown in the spring.

Sports and physical facilities are at the heart of our communities and play a crucial role in supporting adults and children to be active. The Government have provided unprecedented support to businesses through tax reliefs, cash grants and employee wage support, which many sports clubs have benefited from. However, many leisure centres have faced acute challenges during the pandemic, which is why on 27 October the Government announced a £100 million support fund for leisure centres affected by the pandemic, which many hon. Members have mentioned today. My Department is currently working closely with Sport England and MHCLG on the design of that scheme. Further details will be released shortly. Once the funds are open, I urge local authorities to bid for the money. I hope that people will make the most of these precious local facilities once they are open again.

That funding is all on top of what DCMS’s arm’s length body Sport England has already provided, which has comprised over £220 million directly to support the sport and physical activity sector, with £35 million set aside as a community emergency fund for our very important sports clubs and exercise centres through the pandemic. We continue to work with organisations to understand what they need and how we may be able to support them into the future when restrictions are lifted.

I am in regular dialogue with representatives from sports’ governing bodies, member bodies and providers of leisure facilities and gyms through the DCMS-hosted sports working group, which provides a forum for representatives from the sports sector to discuss the impact of the pandemic on the sector and allows members to put questions and suggestions directly to me and the Department. I am grateful to all those involved for their continued advice and support.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions and interest in helping to get sport and physical activity up and running again. I look forward to further increasing our efforts, particularly with the increasingly good news about vaccines. People from all backgrounds and of all levels of ability should have the opportunity to play sports and keep active, and that is a commitment of this Government.