Disability and Gender Inclusivity in the Media

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I will call Dr Lisa Cameron to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to make a winding-up speech.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered disability and gender inclusivity in the media.

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela, in a debate on disability and gender inclusivity in the media, which is such an important issue. In this short debate, I plan first to look back at where we have come from. Then I shall look forward and refer to some of the progress that has been highlighted to me since I secured the debate. That progress comes from a number of media companies that are trying their best to strive and go forward.

To start, it is important to remind ourselves that the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements have empowered women around the world to speak out against sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. That has given hope to a new generation who are marching on a path towards equality. However, we must be cognisant of the fact that the report “Gender Inequality and Screenwriters”, supported by the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society, has revealed an alarming set of statistics, such as the fact that only 16% of film writers in the UK are female. It has also been uncovered that only 14% of prime-time TV is female written. That consistent imbalance was observed over 10 years, and the evidence indeed demonstrated that those figures had flatlined during that period, with no signs of recent improvement in gender representation. We can see from the figures presented in the report that the glass ceiling is still firmly in place and the problem remains locked for so many women—so many talented people who should be contributing to industry.

For an example, we can look way back to the roots of patriarchal society and the ’50s and ’60s, when Sylvia Anderson was a female pioneer in television. As most of us will know, she co-created many groundbreaking children’s shows and characters, from “Fireball XL5” and “Stingray” to “Thunderbirds” and the iconic Lady Penelope. Sylvia Anderson was described in the publicity material of their own production company, AP Films, as the driving force behind the puppet kingdom, and she devised the characters, co-wrote the scripts and the storylines, and often directed the filming herself at a time when there were so few women in such pivotal roles.

During Sylvia’s lifetime, as a result of a patriarchal system, she found herself often omitted from the work and creations that she produced alongside her husband. To this day, those productions are still often referred to with no mention of co-creator Sylvia.

Gender inequality is not limited to writers, as many main creative roles in film production are held predominantly by men. Worldwide, women are still being denied their voice and their due recognition, so why, in 2022, are we still having this debate? Why should this argument exist at all? It seems that, like Sylvia, women are still suffering the effects of gender inequality in respect of which intolerance of women’s place is still a huge factor.

We are pleased to have Dee Anderson, Sylvia’s daughter, with us here today. Dee is supporting the Time’s Up campaign in order to promote gender inclusivity in the media and take forward a more inclusive and gender-balanced industry for the future. I congratulate her on all the work she is doing in that regard.

I want to look briefly at some progress that is being made. I have heard from a number of organisations, such as the BBC, which contacted me to let me know that it is driving forward a campaign called 50:20:12, which has as its targets 50% women, at least 20% people from an ethnic minority background and 12% disabled employees. The BBC is using the campaign to drive a senior leader index for each of its departments. This is so important. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have heard from so many people who have told me that they have no role models within the industries who are from their area and background, and have their characteristics. That can be extremely disheartening.

To see industry trying to drive forward inclusion and equality on our screens is like osmosis. We take this in every day of our lives, when we are watching television, live-streaming or looking at media. Those are the images we see, the people we hear from, the presenters who face the world on our behalf. It is so important that young people from every background and sector of society have those role models to aspire to and know that they can achieve their full potential.

Online Safety Bill

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 12th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recognise that under the present Prime Minister, this Government have specialised in constitutional innovation. Nevertheless, it certainly seems to me, and I hope it does to you and to the House authorities, that this is stretching the boundaries of what is permissible into the outrageous and beyond, and threatening the democracy of this House.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The convention is that if the Leader of the Opposition tables a motion of no confidence, it is taken as the next available business. That is what has been done, yet even though we know that large swathes of the party in Government have no confidence in their Prime Minister, they are refusing to acknowledge and honour a time-honoured convention that is the only way to make a debate on that possible. Do you not agree that it is for this House of Commons to test whether any given Prime Minister has its confidence and that his or her Prime Ministership is always based on that? One of the prerequisites for being appointed Prime Minister of this country by the Queen is that that person shall have the confidence of the House of Commons. If we are not allowed to test that now, when on earth will be allowed to test it?

Stoke-on-Trent: Video Games Enterprise Zone

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I will call Jonathan Gullis to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a video games enterprise zone in Stoke-on-Trent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I am delighted to be joined by my fellow Stoke-on-Trent Members of Parliament for the debate, as well as by the Minister—although she may feel that she has drawn the short straw in dealing with the combined might of the Stoke mafia.

In 2019, during the historic general election campaign, I first raised the idea of Silicon Stoke—a bright new future for our great city, which was once the heart of this country’s industrial revolution. I believe we have a huge opportunity in Stoke-on-Trent to be at the forefront of the new revolution, which will be digital. Having set out a vision for what Silicon Stoke could mean for the Potteries, I am incredibly grateful to Councillor Abi Brown and her city director, John Rouse, for buying into the idea. Since then, we have been united in promoting our vision for a Silicon Stoke, and we have taken it forward by setting up the Silicon Stoke board to create and drive progress. We have published our Silicon Stoke prospectus, setting out how Silicon Stoke could transform our city and local economy. Our prospectus sets out a vision in which Stoke-on-Trent can stand alongside the most hi-tech smart cities of the world.

In the same vein as Leamington Spa, which has its Silicon Spa down the road, we believe that Stoke-on-Trent has a massive opportunity to become a hub for the UK video games industry, as well as for digital and creative jobs more broadly. There is a huge prize waiting for us if we can make this a reality.

Project Gigabit

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Project Gigabit and community-led internet service providers.

It is a massive pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I also offer a massive welcome to the Minister. I am hugely grateful for the opportunity to raise a massively important issue to rural communities. This is a half-hour debate, yet it is great to see friends and colleagues from Cumbria and beyond who share my concerns.

We want to talk about the extremely urgent issue of Project Gigabit. The deadline for applications for the broadband voucher scheme is in three days. After that, the Government plan to cancel, or at least park, the scheme for now. Every day we become increasingly dependent on digital technology, not only for leisure but for work. The covid pandemic has led to more of us working from home, so access to quick, reliable and affordable broadband has never been more important than it is today.

In my community, one in four people in the workforce works for themselves. The impact on small businesses, particularly start-ups, of a very high quality broadband connection is utterly transformational—or something that can delay their access to the world of commerce. I welcome the Government’s Project Gigabit on paper, with its promise to deliver at least 85% gigabit-capable coverage across the UK by 2025. However, I am alarmed that this well-intentioned scheme will, in practice, result in thousands of rural homes, many of which were on the verge of being connected to hyperfast fibre-optic broadband, missing out altogether.

I am talking about towns and villages that have been working with the community-led internet service provider, Broadband for the Rural North or B4RN—known to most of us as “barn”. I am delighted that Michael Lee, the chief executive of B4RN, is with us today in the Gallery. B4RN has brought hyperfast broadband to more than 9,000 properties across Cumbria, Lancashire and Northumberland. It offers 100% of properties in a community a fibre connection to the premises, no matter how hard they are to reach, and with no additional cost passed on to the individual. It even offers free connections to schools, churches and village halls.

It has been able to do all of that through the Government’s various voucher schemes. In the last quarter alone, B4RN has connected 587 more properties to the network, though its plans for the next few years have been put into serious doubt because of Project Gigabit’s procurement process. B4RN’s business model gathers vouchers from households in a rural area and then pools them to deliver a scheme that connects every home, including those that are the most remote and difficult to reach. It then delivers immensely fast broadband at speeds that BT will only deliver if customers pay through the nose, and they would be lucky even then.

Channel 4: Privatisation

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered privatisation of Channel 4.

I am very relieved to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thankful to have secured this timely debate on the future of Channel 4.

Ministers have made it clear, for the sixth time, that they want to privatise Channel 4. They have issued what they ludicrously describe as a consultation document, in which they reveal that their preference is wholesale, 100% privatisation of Channel 4. They have also decreed that the exercise will close on 14 September, which leaves little parliamentary time to resist this act of wanton cultural vandalism and leaves the public only the summer holiday period in which to notice the existential threat that the Government’s actions pose to one of the most successful experiments in UK broadcasting history.

Channel 4 was established in 1982 with an unusual structure and remit. It is Government owned but wholly commercially funded, which means that it costs the taxpayer nothing. More important, Channel 4 has no shareholders and is free to reinvest all the surplus it can generate back into content production. That enables it to develop adventurous and experimental programming that would never find more conventional commercial backing and would therefore never see the light of day if Channel 4 did not exist in its current form.

Over the years, Channel 4 has developed such programming with some panache, and as a consequence the UK has a thriving cultural pool of TV and film production talent and punches well above its weight in the soft-power stakes of cultural influence on the global stage. Channel 4 has also nurtured a younger audience, which makes it especially attractive to advertisers and to those who wish to sponsor content.

Channel 4’s public service broadcasting remit obliges it, among other things, to be innovative, inspire change, nurture talent and offer a platform for alternative, culturally diverse voices. In the 39 years since its creation, Channel 4 has fulfilled its remit—and more. It has become a pint-sized film powerhouse with 37 Oscars and 84 BAFTAs. Film4, its production arm, has co-financed successes such as “The Favourite”, “Slumdog Millionaire” and “12 Years a Slave”, to name but a few. Its successful TV output this year alone includes the AIDS drama “It’s a Sin”; a comedy about a female Muslim punk band, “We Are Lady Parts”; and the magnificent “Grayson’s Art Club”, which got many of us through the lockdown in better shape than we would have been in without it.

The support the channel has given to the Paralympics has been inspirational and genuinely groundbreaking. Its news output, although controversial with Conservative MPs, includes “Unreported World”, the Heineken of news because it reaches the parts that others simply do not go to.

Since Channel 4 is prevented from undertaking any in-house production, it has played a leading role in growing the UK’s world-leading independent TV production sector. It works with more than 300 production companies a year, and has been responsible for directly investing £12 billion in the independent production sector since being established in 1982. That supports 10,000 jobs in the supply chain, a third of which are in the nations and regions of the UK. It also means that Channel 4 effectively acts as a kind of early-stage venture capital fund that takes risks and is able to finance innovation.

It is absolutely clear that the channel’s more risky and experimental programming would never see the light of day if it had to search for commercial backing. If it were not for Channel 4, many exciting and successful careers for writers, directors and performers might simply never have happened. Crucially, the country would have been much poorer in cultural terms if such unusual, diverse voices and talents had remained undiscovered and unfulfilled, their voices and viewpoints stifled and unheard. That model has proved to be robust and resilient, and it has come through the pandemic in good shape, so why on earth are the Government seemingly hellbent on destroying such a successful and innovative system?

Only five years ago, after an 18-month review, the then Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), described Channel 4 as a “precious public asset” and declined to privatise it. She did, however, require it to establish hubs in the regions, which it is doing in Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester, alongside a new national headquarters in Leeds. Any sale is likely to reverse that decentralisation to the regions and would destroy the hubs before they had had a chance to establish themselves. That is a peculiar manifestation of the Government’s self-proclaimed mission to level up, whatever we think that oft-used slogan actually means. Why destroy a unique institution that more than pulls its weight in the national interest?

Ministers have been desperate to find arguments to revive the privatisation threat for a sixth time, and appear obsessed with completing this irreversible destruction despite the fact that there is no merit whatever in the proposal. The Minister for Media and Data, whose response to the debate I eagerly await, has had it in for the channel for decades. Last year, he told an audience at the Tory party conference that the channel was struggling financially, but it is not. It has just returned its highest ever pre-tax surplus of £74 million, despite the disruption caused by the pandemic.

Ministers and some Tory MPs have also attempted to justify their obsession with an irreversible privatisation by claiming that UK media players need scale to compete with the Americans, but not all of them do. Moreover, Channel 4 is competing superbly well with the Americans in their own backyard, as its haul of Oscars shows. It is not trying to be a huge, mega-global media player. That was never its purpose. It occupies an incredibly valuable niche of distinctively British programming with a distinctive voice of its own. All 4, Channel 4’s advertising-funded video-on-demand service, has just posted results that demonstrate a 25% increase in views of its streaming services. Channel 4’s social platforms have had 4.2 billion content views. That once more demonstrates that Channel 4 is evolving to compete in the rapidly changing media environment of on-demand without changing its structure or ownership. Ministers have claimed that Channel 4 needs access to capital to compete, but its executives have denied that that is the case, and its record of producing innovative programming in a unique way bears them out.

Privatisation is often justified as a money-raising effort, but as Channel 4 does not produce content in-house, it has no lucrative back catalogue, and its value has been estimated at between £1 billion and £2 billion. That will make scarcely a dent against the £400 billion that the Government have borrowed and splashed around with such abandon during the pandemic, so money raising cannot be a reason behind the Government’s intention either. What on earth is going on? Why are Ministers hellbent on this destructive act?

When we look at the flimsy arguments that Ministers have used to justify this cultural vandalism, it is hard not to draw the more obvious political conclusion that the Government wish to destroy Channel 4 because they do not like the fact that it caters for diverse audiences and different viewpoints—that they are pursuing a hegemonic media project to control public discourse and they do not like dissenting voices.

There are some hints around. The output of Channel 4 has been described by one Tory MP as woke rubbish. The clue is in the dripping contempt for anything different. Anything that does not share the current Tory world view is beyond the pale and ripe for destruction.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she must also, I think, reflect the fact that these are Government proposals. Many of us in the Conservative party are questioning them in the same way that she is and will be very interested in what the Minister has to say in winding-up the debate. She must not characterise this as a “Tories versus Channel 4” debate.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman being one of, I hope, more than 40 Conservative MPs who appear in the Lobby to vote against any such privatisation proposals. If he can raise that number, I hope to be in the Lobby with him.

It is certainly the case, though, that “Channel 4 News” has refused to be cowed by the Government’s none-too-subtle attempts to intimidate it. Those manifested themselves most notoriously during the 2019 general election when—this may be the real reason that we are seeing what we are—the Prime Minister was replaced by a melting ice sculpture in the Channel 4 leaders’ debate on climate change, which he had characteristically shirked. Following that incident, an unnamed Tory source briefed that Channel 4 would be privatised as punishment for lampooning the prime ministerial no-show. A complaint was made to Ofcom, but it was subsequently thrown out.

To silence such dissent in the future, the Government have decided that Channel 4 will be privatised, and Ofcom taken over by new, hard-line appointees. The BBC has already been cowed. Our national discourse is being drained of different voices as a deliberate act of political ideology. That reminds me more of the authoritarian events going on in Hungary than of something I ever expected to witness in the UK.

I hope the Government will step back from the brink that they have moved towards. For Channel 4, privatisation will be irreversible—an act of vandalism that does irreparable damage to a model that has worked well and provided a unique source of innovation and support, nurturing a vibrant independent production industry that should be the pride of our country. Already, the big beasts—Disney, Netflix, Discovery, Google and Amazon—are beginning to circle, and the Minister for Media and Data is spending his time facilitating the interests of those corporate big beasts by hinting that in-house production will be allowed following privatisation and that Channel 4’s “edgy” remit will be changed.

So there we have it: a sale that threatens to destroy in one fell swoop the independent production industry that Channel 4’s remit and inability to produce in-house have fostered in the UK for the past 40 years. That is deliberate vandalism of all that is unique and successful about Channel 4. If privatisation happens, the bland dullness of US corporate regurgitation may well await us all.

That may serve the immediate interests of what some in the Conservative party believe, but it does not serve the interests of the country. How does the Minister think that it is in the country’s cultural interests to destroy Channel 4? Will his Department prepare and publish an impact assessment of its privatisation plans? How do the Government intend to change the remit of Channel 4 to facilitate a sale? How will privatisation protect innovative and experimental programming that comes from diverse and often unheard voices?

Ministers have also announced that the current ban on in-house production could end with privatisation. That would put the UK’s thriving independent production sector and the 10,000 jobs that it supports directly at risk. How will the Government protect the sector? Finally, how will flogging off Channel 4, possibly to one of the corporate digital giants, preserve the UK’s unique voice in the age of bland corporate entertainment?

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s detailed answers.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 10.28 am. Therefore, given the number of Members who have indicated on the call list that they wish to speak, I will introduce a four-minute limit for speeches. For those who have not already done so, please feel free to remove your jackets, as it is unseasonably warm, yet summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Whittingdale]

I do not think I am going to have time.

I also point to Channel 5. Its spend on content was very small while it was under UK ownership, but when it was bought by Viacom, it became channel of the year and there has been a massive investment.

The one thing I make categorically clear is the reason the Government are looking at the future ownership of Channel 4, which is that we wish to sustain Channel 4. We are concerned that, in the longer term, the model is going to come under ever-increasing pressure and will be unable to deliver the content that we all want to see.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Whittingdale]

I am afraid I do not have time.

I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no political agenda attached to this. I am completely committed to an independent Channel 4, and I welcome the fact that it has a questioning news programme. This is not motivated in any way by a political agenda or ideology. It is about sustaining Channel 4 and making sure that it has a viable future. That is why we are having a consultation. It is a consultation.

I want to answer the point about remit. We are asking a question about whether the remit might or might not be amended to take account of changes. It is not a question of removing the remit. In some areas, there may well be a case for strengthening the remit, and there is absolutely no intention to strip the remit away. The remit will be there. Whether it is tweaked in some way, perhaps to increase the requirements for production outside London, is something that we are asking questions about.

I also want to answer the question about the impact assessment. The impact assessment will be determined by the answers to those questions. An impact assessment cannot be carried out before those things have been decided—for instance, what the remit should be, as that will have a huge effect on the impact. All those matters are subject to an open consultation, with no decision taken.

The hon. Member for Wallasey referred to lack of parliamentary time. I can promise her that, if it is decided to change the model, that will require primary legislation. There will be no lack of opportunity for Parliament to debate any changes that we decide to make. There will be an impact assessment at that time. No decision has been taken. It is the job of Government to look forward and to ask how we can best ensure that Channel 4 has a viable future. That is what we are doing.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. That is two Chairs in one debate. I am disappointed that the Minister declined to allow me to question him, since this is my debate. I do not think our arguments have been backward looking, and many of us have made the point that Channel 4 is already evolving.

This is the question I would have put to the Minister, had he allowed me to do so: why have the Government made it clear that their preference is for 100% privatisation of Channel 4? If the consultation is open-minded, they would not have been so firm in their view. It appears to me, from reading the documents, that the Government have already decided that they are going to flog off the entirety of Channel 4. They have made that clear in the way the consultation is worded.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Angela Eagle]

Very briefly, because I have only two minutes to respond.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

The missing word is “Treasury”, which wants the income. The other missing things are the executives of Channel 4 saying that they want to change the ownership, and the independent producers saying that would benefit them. Neither have.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I agree with the last two points the hon. Gentleman has made, although I am not sure I agree with the point about the Treasury, as selling off Channel 4 would not raise much money. That makes the threat to the model and to the remit all the more problematic, especially, as many hon. Members have pointed out, with respect to the ongoing health of our independent sector, its ownership of IP and the trade benefits that that gives us.

I hope the Minister will in future demonstrate, more than he has today, an open mind on what is happening with Channel 4, and will be more forthcoming, more quickly, on how he thinks the remit will change and whether the in-house production ban will remain. We need to know how Channel 4—which offers unique things to our country, many of which we have heard about today—can be facilitated, not changed out of all recognition, and that it can look forward to a future in a changing media environment that preserves all that we value it for.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered privatisation of Channel 4.

Online Harms Consultation

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I make this announcement to the House, I am writing to my counterparts around the world to inform them of what the British Government are doing; it is world leading. There is a lot of interest from my counterparts around the world and I shall be working with them because although, as we all know, the UK is a significant country in terms of market share for tech firms, we cannot operate in isolation. It is important to work with major markets, such as the US and the EU, to achieve a co-ordinated approach. We are all trying to move in this direction, so the more we can join up our approach, the more effective we can be.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Online activity is really important to extremists of all kinds in furthering their aims. Fake news—disinformation—is the currency of authoritarian forces, undermining our democracy; and on their business models, currently tech companies profit from that. What action would the Bill take to defend our democratic values if it was on the statute book now? How would it solve this threat?

[Oliver Dowden]

This legislation is specifically aimed at harm caused to individuals, so of course, to the extent that there is harm to individuals, such material will fall within the scope of this legislation. But remember: this sits alongside other action by the Government. For example, the Cabinet Office is leading work on the cross-government defending democracy programme, to deal with the wider challenges to our democratic values.

5G Network

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ms Angela Eagle (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and should dispose of the materials as they leave the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. They should speak only from the horseshoe—although it does not look like that will be a problem for our debate today. Members are not expected to remain for wind-ups. There is less expectation for them to stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken. That is to help to manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech but should be aware that, in doing so, they might prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving to seats in the horseshoe. Again, I do not think that will impinge on our concern this afternoon.

Covid-19: Restrictions on Gyms and Sport

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and to follow the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I will concentrate particularly on gyms, rather than making general comments on sport, although I support all those we have heard.

Also, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who, before she even stood up to speak, had persuaded the Prime Minister to do what she asked him to do in this debate. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, we need to hear a bit more detail from the Minister, given the arbitrary nature of some of what has gone on in the last year, particularly with respect to gyms.

I will mention Nick Whitcombe, who owns and runs Body Tech Fitness in Moreton and who is a constituent of mine, and Thea Holden, who runs EmpoweredFIT. She is also a constituent of mine, although her gym is close to Arrowe Park Hospital, which I believe is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). We all know how important the battle against obesity is if we are to make covid-19 less of a problem, and how important it is for people to have a chance to become fitter, which is guaranteed if you manage to get yourself embroiled in a gym.

I want to talk about the mental health benefits of being able to work out, which have been alluded to and are very well known everywhere. Both Nick and Thea Holden, my constituents, would attest to that. There is another aspect: going to the gym can help people to deal with health conditions. Thea, who runs her own gym, suffers from Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which results in multiple joint dislocations. She was confined to a wheelchair and on medication before discovering that the disease could be managed by going to the gym. She is now drug-free, wheelchair-free and very fit as a result of the work that she did. She helps clients with the same issue and keeps them out of wheelchairs. When I spoke to her the other day, she told me that some of the people that she helped have been going backwards, because the gym has closed and they cannot get the workout that they need.

Thea has clients with mental health problems. One had a history of self-harming, attempted suicide and other mental health conditions. They could not relate to many people, but found that the atmosphere in the gym, the friends they made there, the effort they put in and the support they got there were very good for her mental health. Thea worries that, with her gym closed, people are really missing out and being put in danger.

Nick, who runs Body Tech in Moreton, asks why we cannot make health and fitness an essential service—not like a blue-light service, but in terms of the role that it plays in physical and mental wellbeing—and protect it more. Will the Minister tell us the scientific basis for the decision to close? Will he admit publicly that we now know more about the disease, and that the prevalence of covid was very low over the summer months, making it much safer, with the process that has been put in place, for gyms to remain open? I hope he will say that, even in tier 3-plus, gyms can look forward to remaining open.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

If the Minister and the shadow Minister confine their remarks to about 10 minutes each, that will allow Catherine McKinnell to respond to the debate. I call Alison McGovern.

Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Angela Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 General Committees

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Davies, to see you siting in the Chair for today’s proceedings. I welcome this statutory instrument, which does an important job. I am interested to see whether the Minister will tell us a bit more about the customer confusion caused by the marketing of foreign lotteries and bets on the outcome of foreign lotteries. What she has said today sets an interesting and good precedent regarding customer confusion about advertising leading to more regulation of lotteries and much wider measures. Would she say more about that?

There are some anecdotes in the impact assessment about people who confuse betting on the outcome of the EuroMillions lottery with the buying of tickets for our lottery. Such marketing—along with the operation of websites that send people to dubious places when they search, tempting them to buy dubious things that are not what they think they are—happens far more widely than lotteries, although in gambling it is clearly a difficult issue and could lead to problem gambling. Would the Minister say more about the good precedent set by her and her Department in taking this draconian but welcome legislative action, tipped off by evidence that customers are confused?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tracey Crouch]

We face many challenges at the moment regarding the national lottery and the return to good causes. We are seeing some stabilisation of lottery sales, which is a good sign, and we have regular discussions via the Gambling Commission with Camelot about lottery sales. Today, we are specifically looking at EuroMillions, which gives 27% of its retail sales and 33% of its online sales to good causes. We want to ensure that we eradicate any threat to that by looking at closing the loophole that allows people to bet on EuroMillions. That is something that has been discussed over time, and we feel strongly that it is a way of supporting the good causes that people who play the national lottery believe they are getting involved in.

[Ms Eagle]

I am interested in the level of confusion caused by advertising the presence of gambling websites—the way in which one goes through a search engine on to a gambling website, which gives confusing information— and what assessment the Government have made of the standards that are acceptable on those websites and those that are unacceptable because they are actively misleading. Can the Minister give us more information about the way in which she and her Department have reached decisions on that? We support the decisions, but there is a much bigger issue about confusion and sales issues on all kinds of websites, for which she may be setting a good precedent. That is what I am interested in.

[Tracey Crouch]

I refer the hon. Lady to the gambling review, in which we look at issues around advertising and gambling, full stop. That includes advertising online and we will continue to work on that. There is a whole system of algorithms that are in place, which we are trying to unpick to see whether we can seek to develop a much more responsible way of advertising gambling products in response to particular search items.

As I said, we are aware that if people search for EuroMillions, the first thing that comes up is not necessarily the national lottery site but gambling sites. That is one of the things we are trying to unpick, but on a much wider scale, not just related to this issue. We have to ensure that customers have a choice. We must recognise that there are legitimate betting operations and practices out there, but we want to ensure that we have the right choices for the consumer.

[Ms Eagle]

Is the Minister saying that the Government might be mandating changes to algorithms so that there is a proper choice when one uses a search engine?

[Tracey Crouch]

We are reviewing all of this as part of the gambling review and the outcome of the review will be published soon, in the spring, although the hon. Lady knows as well as I do that in Government parlance that can vary.

[Ms Eagle]

“Soon” could be winter.

[Tracey Crouch]

It is the first day of spring today. I urge the hon. Lady to engage with the outcomes of the gambling review, which looks at the much wider issue of advertising in gambling: not just in broadcast, but how we can reduce customer confusion and protect vulnerable people from harm online.

To conclude, in introducing regulations imposing a new licence condition, we are doing no more than extending the existing protection against betting on the national lottery and taking action to remove consumer confusion relating to bets on EuroMillions games. I further commend these regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.