Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephanie Peacock
I recognise how important the tourism and hospitality sectors are to Suffolk, and I know that my hon. Friend is a strong champion for them and for her area. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport works closely with other Departments, including DESNZ and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to ensure that the needs of the visitor economy are considered as part of the planning and delivery of large-scale projects. The Government acknowledge concerns that numerous projects may be consented to in one region, and the cumulative impacts of schemes are considered as they move individually through the NSIP regime. I will reflect her comments to MHCLG, but of course such large infrastructure projects are important for the country.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My constituency has the largest number of wind turbines, either constructed or consented to. Does the Minister share my concern that the Scottish Government continue to override the views of local councils and local communities in consenting to further projects that are to the detriment of the landscape and therefore the local tourist industry?
Stephanie Peacock
I have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am sure that the relevant Secretary of State and indeed the Scottish Government have heard it. I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.
Marsha De Cordova
I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Can I ask the hon. Lady to encourage the Church Commissioners to share best practice and their experience of sustaining small churches in rural communities with the Church of Scotland? Sadly, in my constituency we have seen almost the wholesale closure of every small church in a rural area.
Marsha De Cordova
Again, I am sorry to hear about the right hon. Member’s constituency and the number of churches that are no longer in operation. I will certainly ensure that whatever best practice the Church Commissioners have can be shared with the Church of Scotland.
Future of Terrestrial Television
David Mundell Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. We are here to debate a hidden threat to a vital service that most of our constituents use every week, and that service is digital terrestrial TV, commonly known as Freeview. So that we are absolutely clear what we are talking about, it is a TV signal that is picked up through the aerial on our roofs. It lets us access broadcast TV channels from the likes of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5, including ITV Border in my constituency, STV in the rest of Scotland, and S4C in Wales, as well as over 100 more channels serving a range of interests.
Freeview is a universal service reaching 98.5% of the UK population, including those in remote and rural areas. It is available at no additional cost over and above the licence fee. This is a crucial point: people do not need to pay any additional monthly bills to watch terrestrial TV; all they need is a TV set and an aerial.
The options for watching TV have broadened in the last few years, with the arrival of TV streaming over the internet, or IPTV, as it is known. Many of us enjoy those services, but the fact is that to do so, someone needs a high-speed fixed broadband subscription of sufficient speed and reliability, and not everyone has that.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I know he is acutely aware that many communities that he and I represent in the Scottish borders rely on that television service. At the same time, they do not have access to a high-speed, high quality broadband connection unless they pay significantly for it. Does he agree that we need a commitment from the Government to extend the Freeview service to reassure residents in those communities?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and throughout my speech I will make the point that nobody should be required to pay to watch television. As he said, it is particularly an issue in rural areas, where broadband services can be extremely patchy and speeds highly variable. In more urban and suburban areas, broadband outages are also far from uncommon.
Terrestrial TV has a reliability of close to 99%, which broadband does not. Almost half—45.1%—of broadband customers experienced an outage lasting more than 48 hours in the past year. Indeed, Biggar and the surrounding communities in my constituency experienced an outage of 36 hours. Even as high-speed coverage increases through initiatives such as Project Gigabit, take-up is entirely a different matter.
Research from the consultancy EY estimates that by 2040, some 5.5 million premises will not have taken up a high-speed fixed broadband subscription. Today, some people cannot access fixed broadband because the signal where they live is not fast or reliable enough. Other people simply cannot afford to pay for fixed broadband subscriptions on top of other bills. Millions of people are relying exclusively on mobile for access to the internet. Indeed, data from Citizens Advice suggested that, in 2022 alone, up to 1 million people cancelled their broadband subscription because of the high cost of living.
That is why terrestrial TV remains essential—because it is universal. Indeed, it is the guarantee of universalism in British broadcasting, and that is a priceless asset. For terrestrial TV to provide that bedrock guarantee of universal access, complementing internet streaming, gives the UK the best of both worlds. It is a hybrid model that is so much more robust than putting all our eggs in one basket and relying on a single point of failure.
In addition, the service remains hugely popular and widely used. More than 80% of BBC and ITV content is watched on linear broadcast TV—that is, live on channels such as BBC One or ITV2. Of that viewing, about half—a huge amount—is through terrestrial TV. Indeed, it remains the main way TV content is consumed in the UK.
The reason why we are having this debate today is that despite being a widely used and, in my view, essential service, it is currently under threat of being switched off within a decade. The licences that support terrestrial TV expire in 2034, and the Government have so far not provided a long-term commitment. Yet there is no need to consider switching off terrestrial TV in the mid-2030s, be that for political, technological or financial reasons.
The Government have the opportunity to announce that they support terrestrial TV’s role for the longer term. Nobody, or not very many people, is suggesting that the BBC should be switched off when its current charter concludes in 2027. The projections suggest that terrestrial TV will continue to make a crucial contribution and serve millions of viewers well past that date. However, there are some voices calling for an end to terrestrial TV by the mid-2030s and a transition of all viewing to online streaming only. The BBC director general, Tim Davie, recently said as much, and there are those in parts of the broadcast and telecoms sectors who would certainly welcome it.
Ministers have a decision to make, and I am delighted to see this Minister with us today to respond to the debate. I know she encourages debate and discussion on this issue, and I particularly congratulate her on tackling the issue head-on with the forum that she has convened on the future of TV distribution. I hope that, in her remarks later, she will be able to tell us more about the work of the forum and how it will feed into her decision making, as well as about the timescales she anticipates for that.
I know from my meetings with ITV and Sky that broadcasters are eager to hear from the Minister too. This issue has flown a bit under the radar so far, and any decision could have profound consequences for people across the UK. Indeed, the principal reason why we are having this debate is to raise awareness about the potential end to terrestrial TV, which is too little understood. Recent research from the Digital Poverty Alliance, which I commend to Members, revealed that 69% of the public were completely unaware that the future of terrestrial TV was under threat at all, and 73% of people polled believed that terrestrial TV should be protected well beyond 2035.
That is really my message today—any talk about a switch-off of terrestrial TV in the 2030s is completely premature and unrealistic. The Government have the opportunity to take that possibility off the table and give certainty for the service into the 2040s. We could use various analogies to exemplify the point about a hybrid model of delivery being best. I would make the analogy with the debate about access to cash, on which I have long campaigned. The creeping withdrawal of banks and free cashpoints, especially from smaller towns and more rural settings, means that we are sleepwalking to a cashless society. Many people value the ability to make cashless transactions, and no doubt the convenience of digital payments will continue to expand, but the fact is that many people still want to be able to access cash, and the Government rightly stepped in to provide a guarantee that cash would remain available.
Exactly the same argument applies in respect of terrestrial TV. Indeed, it is an even stronger argument, because the viewing rates for terrestrial TV are far higher than the rates of use of cash. Even as more of us stream more content online, it is terrestrial TV that guarantees universal access and that is there when fixed broadband fails. The same research I cited earlier revealed that 70% of the public feel reassured by knowing that terrestrial TV is available as a fall-back option, even if they do not use it on a daily basis.
I am sure that we will hear during the debate about a range of factors that Ministers need to consider as they make decisions about the future of terrestrial TV. What cannot be denied is that any move to switch it off would hit the most vulnerable people the hardest, including those struggling with the cost of living, many older people, people living with disabilities and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) highlighted, those in remote, rural and island communities. They all rely on terrestrial TV to stay connected and, in many cases, do not have the choice of simply switching to streaming.
Debates about broadcasting are often dominated by perspectives from what might be called a media elite, by which I mean those who tend to be in and of the big cities—London, but not just London—and a bit more middle class and a little younger. That is no criticism of those individuals, but we have to be aware that not everyone sees things from their perspective, and we, as legislators, need to be focused on ensuring that we serve the whole country, including those whose lives are quite different. When the Minister is being told by broadcasters and others that the direction of travel is away from terrestrial TV, cash payments or many other things, I urge her to bear in mind, as I am sure she will, that so many of the people we represent see things differently.
Some may argue that we just need to accept that more and more services are moving online. Some in the industry have even suggested that the threat of losing access to TV is a good way of forcing people who are not online to get online. However, as Elizabeth Anderson, the chief executive officer of the Digital Poverty Alliance, has said:
“What would be unconscionable…is to use any threat of the removal of the terrestrial TV service as a coercive stick with which to force people to take on new and unwelcome financial burdens simply to continue being connected to shared televisual experiences. The millions of people who watch terrestrial TV every day as their preferred mode of TV viewing deserve more respect than to be treated in that way.”
It is simply a fact that a large category of people who today enjoy accessing TV through the terrestrial service would be excluded if the service were switched off in the 2030s.
Let me be clear: guaranteeing the long-term future of terrestrial TV is by no means anti-digital, as some may claim. In fact, protecting the future of terrestrial TV is what makes our media industry one of the most digitally diverse globally. Losing terrestrial TV could damage the viability of UK-wide broadcast networks, which are relied on by a range of other sectors, including radio.
I expect that the Minister will refer to the financial viability of the service. In fact, terrestrial TV represents a very modest cost to broadcasters right now—less than 3% of the licence fee to fund a universal service. Indeed, research by the consultancy EY indicates that the costs of terrestrial TV could be reduced substantially in the future if it has the certainty of a longer life span to justify investment.
The financial implications of any switch-off also need to be factored in. As I have already explained, there would be new costs for viewers who would need to take out high- speed fixed broadband subscriptions; on average, the cost for them would be an extra £214 a year. It would also mean new costs for the Government, who would potentially have to fund the upgrades necessary to make the internet infrastructure suitable for a huge surge in demand. EY estimates that that cost would be £1 billion annually as an ongoing—indeed, permanent—subsidy. In reality, there would be a shift in the cost burden of TV distribution, away from the broadcasters and on to the shoulders of viewers and taxpayers. As things stand, we would lose a vital service and we would all pay more for less. Clearly, that looks like a good deal for the BBC and other broadcasters; what is less clear is whether it would be a good deal for my constituents and those of other MPs.
Broadcasters should be careful what they wish for. As I have already said, the reality is that only a tiny percentage of the licence fee goes on paying for terrestrial TV. For the price of the licence fee, the BBC guarantees universal, free-to-air access to broadcast TV content to virtually everyone in the UK. Without that universality, it might be a lot harder to make the case for the licence fee as a flat tax on TV ownership.
I say again that we should get some clarity from the Government and that the possibility of losing terrestrial TV in the next decade should be taken off the table. Instead, let us give viewers the guarantee of universal access to Great British broadcasting through the best-of-both-worlds model that we have today, retaining it well into the future.
David Mundell
I commit to concluding my remarks when the bell tolls.
I particularly thank the Minister for getting in a very full response before we have to conclude proceedings. It was very telling that when she read out the research that has been conducted, it was entirely in tune with what hon. Members had been saying throughout the debate—about the vulnerable, those who are remote and rural, and those who do not have good access to broadband.
While I would never want to characterise my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) as a member of the media elite, and I am sure that Sky Glass is an excellent product, I must point out that many of my constituents are unable, either practically or financially, to access it. That is very much what this debate is about: we have to focus on the people who are not in a position to do that.
The Minister can look back at the digital switchover, which was trialled in my own constituency a long time ago —the first switchover took place there. People who switched from analogue to digital were not then asked to pay a broadband subscription. The television service that they had was essentially changed, but they were not asked to pay anything for that to happen. Although the exercise was well managed, the analogy is not quite complete.
Sir John Whittingdale
I hesitate to disagree with my right hon. Friend, but it was actually the case that they were required to pay something. They had to purchase a set-top box, but the Government offered support to those who could not afford one. Perhaps that is an analogy we can follow in the future.
David Mundell
Well, we could go into the detail, because not everybody required a set-top box, but we are not going down that route. What we can agree is that, when that change was made, there was a huge intervention to allow it to take place smoothly.
I thank the hon. Members who contributed to the debate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) emphasised how much television helps wellbeing and reduces loneliness. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) hit the nail on the head when she said that for many people, the television in the corner is a companion. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) made very good points about the infrastructure behind television services and supporting local retailers.
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) set out the practical issues in relation to the transmitter network. I have seen the transmitter in his constituency many times—it is often a beacon on a dark night in central Scotland—and I am glad that he has had the opportunity to visit it. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) set out many of the same issues as I face in my large rural constituency. We must keep our focus on the people living in such areas.
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) asked very clearly, “Who is going to pay for the switchover?” That, too, is very important. The hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine), bringing to bear his experience, made really important points, particularly about scheduling and all the things that terrestrial television brings as the core of the network.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Is the right hon. Member happy for me to put the Question, because a vote is about to be held?
David Mundell
Well, I would not want to leave without mentioning the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his important contribution. Thank you, Mr Twigg.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their co-operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of terrestrial television.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is a good representative for the people of Harlow. In his constituency, St Mary Magdalene church runs a vibrant Sunday school and mothers’ union, with lots of events and activities for all the community. St Stephen’s church runs a parent and toddler group while also supporting local care homes. St Paul’s and St Mary’s churches partner with the local food bank and run a Bounty club with the Michael Roberts Charitable Trust, offering good, healthy food at a low cost.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
With the closure of many churches in rural communities in England and in Scotland, too, are the commissioners concerned that people living in rural areas, particularly those on low incomes, might not be able to access worship within easy reach of their own communities?
Marsha De Cordova
The right hon. Gentleman asks an important question. The Church values all its rural communities, and that is why we have so many different projects to ensure that places of worship not only exist, but operate as a community hub to ensure that people in those local areas have places to go, whether that is for worship, a local food bank, or a mother and baby group.
Victory in Europe and Victory over Japan: 80th Anniversary
David Mundell Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I look forward to marking VE Day on Thursday in the Royal Burgh of Sanquhar, which is part of Upper Nithsdale’s proud military heritage, at the beacon to be lit at Hass hill in Lockerbie, and at a parade in Dumfries on Saturday. What Ministers and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, might not know is that the end of the war in Europe was first announced in Dumfries, because the Provost Fyfe jumped the gun and announced it at 12 pm. Local newspaper reports are clear that by the time Churchill made the official announcement at 3 pm—despite the pouring rain—the party was well under way in Dumfries.
I want to reference two individuals who are strongly related to the war but at different ends of the spectrum. The first is Air Chief Marshal Lord Hugh Dowding, who was born in Moffat. Lord Dowding is the man who masterminded the battle of Britain, and it is generally accepted that he played a crucial role in ensuring that Hitler’s Operation Sea Lion—the proposal to invade this island—did not succeed. He was a tactical genius who knew how to manage the RAF resource and ensured there were detailed preparations for the air defences.
The other person is David Shankland MBE. He was a great character in my local community when I was growing up. Davie, like a lot of people, was involved in an incident that was not an attack by the enemy but a ship carrying munitions that blew up in Bombay harbour. That ship—the SS Fort Stikine—blew up and took down the ship that Davie was on, El Hind, as well. About 1,300 people perished in that incident, and Davie was one of only six people on his vessel to survive. He took that as a message that he needed to dedicate the rest of his life to public service, and that is what he did. When he was demobbed, he became a nurse. He was the first male state-registered nurse in the south of Scotland, and he went on to be a distinguished nurse tutor. That is the sort of impact the war had: people going through it and making it a positive experience.
I also want to mention my mother Dorah. She was 13 when the war began, but as soon as she was 18 in 1944, she volunteered and became an Army cook, going from rural south Scotland to Norfolk. Her abiding memory of the war was D-day. Having cooked the night before for a full and overflowing canteen, she said she went in the next morning and there were only four old men to serve. My aunt, who remained in the south of Scotland, had to work on the farm. She was 19 and worked throughout the war as a farm labourer because, as others have referenced, there just were not men to do that. We pay tribute to those people, even if they did not have a formal role.
The final point, which I am pleased that a number of Members have raised, is VJ Day. The King’s Own Scottish Borderers from the south of Scotland were heavily involved in the eastern campaign. People never really felt that they got the acknowledgment they deserved, because they felt that the war had ended and yet it had not.
Several hon. Members rose—
BBC: Funding
David Mundell Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir John Whittingdale
I agree. Yesterday, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from the director general and the deputy director for news, Jonathan Munro, on this subject. He talked about the way the World Service provides its core language services and can also provide additional coverage quickly. Syria is a good example of where it is doing that. That is an extremely important role for the BBC, and one that I do not think could be funded in any way other than through public money. The BBC make a good case as to why the licence fee may no longer be appropriate, which we also need to consider.
There are a large number of Members present in the Chamber, so I do not want to take up any more time. I hope that I have raised one or two questions that we will need to debate thoroughly over the course of the couple of years that lie ahead for the charter renewal.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. I do not intend to set a time limit, but if Members could stick to five or six minutes, everybody should get to speak.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing the debate. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who was supported by the Musicians’ Union, and I am the son of a videotape editor for the BBC, so I spent much of my childhood on the cutting room floor of Pebble Mill in the west midlands.
We hear about bias from all political parties and all sides. I heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues earlier today about their frustration that the leader of the Reform party has appeared on the BBC far more times than any Liberal Democrats have. I heard the concern about trust expressed by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), a former Minister, but several high-profile leaders of the BBC are former Conservative members or advisers. Many people who worked for the BBC are now prominent Conservatives on my local council.
We are talking about the funding of the BBC. We will all be unhappy with its output at some stage, yet the public still put it higher than most news outlets and other broadcasters. On the issue of funding the organisation, which is still one of the best in the world, does the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) agree that if we put a subscription process in place, not everybody would take it up, which would drive up the subscription fee, and then the BBC would have an even bigger funding problem?
Sir John Whittingdale
I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. A number of criticisms of the BBC have been expressed, and I have my own criticisms; nevertheless, everybody recognises the value that the BBC brings to the UK and our society, and the importance of ensuring that it continues to play that important role. But there is a problem: the current model is looking harder and harder to sustain. I therefore suspect that we will continue to debate this issue over the coming weeks and years during the charter renewal process. I look forward to continuing my discussion with the Minister and others. I thank everybody for their contributions and join the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), the Minister and all others in wishing all Members a very happy Christmas.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I am surprised that nobody has mentioned BBC Parliament, on which this debate will appear. I understand that it is available over Christmas, when it shows highlights from parliamentary proceedings—of which I am sure this debate will be part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future funding of the BBC.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Mundell Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
When mobile providers started to turn off the 2G and 3G networks earlier this year, we were told that it would have no impact on existing services, but the experience in my constituency is the contrary, particularly along the M74 motorway network. Will Ministers investigate the impact of the switch-off to date, and ensure that necessary improvements are made so that we have a full network across the whole of the United Kingdom?
Chris Bryant
I think this is a hangover from yesterday’s questions on telecoms, but the right hon. Member makes a very good point. One of the things that keeps me awake at night is worrying about what will happen to the transition for people with telecare devices, which rely on the old public switched telephone network. We are keen to have a safe transition. Exactly the same issues apply to 2G and 3G. I will happily meet with him, if that would help.
Copper Wire Telecoms
David Mundell Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman made some very good points and I will come on to them in a moment.
It is good to have the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) here with us, who made some very important points. She referred to the debate tomorrow on the potential merger between Vodafone and Three. I will also not be there, because I shall be at Glenys Kinnock’s funeral. The Minister will have a different shadow tomorrow; my place will be taken admirably by another Chris from the shadow Front Bench, also from south Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans). I somewhat disagree with the points that the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made, but anyway, those will be elucidated tomorrow.
It was good to hear from the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), who referred to notspots, which I think she said covered 13% of her constituency, and the fact that 3% of people in the UK have no 4G signal. We are also 51st in the world for 5G signal. We are all aware that there are quite a lot of issues in terms of mobile and internet connectivity that apply to large sections of the United Kingdom. Somehow, we have not really managed to seize this with the energy that some other countries have managed.
Sir Chris Bryant
Indeed. However, I would argue that relying on legacy systems is dangerous for our public institutions, because we have to pay a lot of money to keep and maintain them, and they do not have a great deal of resilience. Of course we also know that if someone sends a handwritten letter, that may be more reliable than some other forms of communication. Anyway, the point is well made that we still have fax machines. Therefore, there is a wide variety of areas where we need to take cognisance of the impending danger if we go too fast down the route that we are discussing this morning.
Ofcom has also identified a series of different vulnerabilities—people who are more vulnerable than others in relation to age, disability, physical and mental health, and income. One of my biggest concerns as shadow Minister with responsibility for digital is that 18% of poorer homes in the UK have no internet to home at all—18%. That is a problem for levelling up; it is a problem when it comes to diversifying the economy; it is a problem in rural areas; it is a problem in inner-city areas; and there are problems in relation to buildings where it is difficult to get wayleaves. A whole series of issues combine to create a real, long-term problem for some of the most vulnerable families in the country. Some 7% of Welsh adults have no internet to home at all, so relying on VoIP to deliver emergency services with PSTN gone is problematic.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has faced emergency situations in various storms, and I think this debate partly stems from that experience. Of course, the law requires phone services to take all necessary measures to ensure uninterrupted access to emergency organisations, including during a power cut. That remains the case for VoIP services, which is why Ofcom provided guidance in 2018 on how service providers should do that. Virgin Media, for instance, will provide an emergency back-up line that relies on a battery-operated box in such circumstances. However, the way that all the service providers in the UK are meeting that responsibility remains unclear, which is why Ofcom started a monitoring programme in July 2022. It would be good to hear from Ofcom on how well that is proceeding.
In May 2022, the Electronic Communications Resilience and Response Group published a post-incident report after the storms in 2021-22. It was rather, I would say, blasé. It seemed to suggest that we could now cope better and that there would be greater resilience in future, but I think the points already made by several Members were very well made. In December 2022, Ofcom produced its “Connected Nations” report, which similarly suggested that we had learnt a lot of lessons from the storms, but I am not convinced that we are in a strong enough place.
I fully accept that, as a couple of hon. Members have said, there are significant advantages to transitioning. First, the copper wire is not going to last forever. Secondly, there is an affordability issue for the for the operators—keeping two systems going is more expensive. I would like every home in the land to have at least a superfast broadband connection. We were aware during covid in particular that many children were unable to do their homework because they basically relied on a mobile phone for their internet connection, and I do not think that will really work for the future.
Other countries have been much more assertive, aggressive and determined to transition. The Netherlands and Estonia have completed the process. Singapore completed it in 2020. Japan will complete it by next year. Spain had already done 80% by 2020, and Portugal had done 60% by 2020. By contrast, the UK managed only 2% by 2020. We are laggards in this. I am not going to excoriate the Minister for being slow and tardy—I see he is waggling his head in a sort of Eeyore way—but I am going to make this point to him: Estonia took three years to do it. Estonia is a much smaller country, so perhaps it was simpler to do it there. The Netherlands took 15 years. One could argue that we are going too fast to be able to ensure that we have met all the problems.
What should we do? First, I think we should pause this process now. We should take stock. The right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal made the good point that we should learn lessons from other countries. We should find out how Estonia managed to do it in three years, how Singapore managed to do it by 2020, and what resilience programming they have. How do they make sure that, if there is a power cut—in particular, one that lasts more than a couple of hours—how do they make sure that people are safe and protected? I do not want that pause to be endless; six months is enough, but I think we should take stock and the Government should come back to us with a clear plan of how we can move forward.
Secondly, we need to identify vulnerable customers and communities, because this does not play out equally in every part of the country. Thirdly—this point has been made by several hon. Members—we really need to improve mobile connectivity. I repeated that point at least 20 times as an MP, but in the words of Browning:
“Hark, the dominant’s persistence till it must be answered to!”
Ofcom says there is full connectivity in the town of Porth where I live in the Rhondda, both indoors and outdoors. That is a complete and utter fiction; I cannot get a mobile signal inside my house, other than through VoIP, and that is not just the case in my house, but in nearly every other house in Porth. Ofcom needs to go back to the drawing board and start again on providing accurate information on mobile connectivity.
We must also do more on enabling shared networks and shared masts. It took us far too long to get the electronic communications code through, and I understand that it still has not been fully implemented, though maybe the Government will be able to update us on that. I worry that it does not quite do the trick for enabling mobile connectivity in the rural areas we are talking about. In the Rhondda, sheep can be seen from virtually every house if one looks carefully enough, so we feel rural; though it is quite a dense community mostly living in the valley floor. We in the valleys community share with many other rural areas across the whole country the same anxieties about being able to develop economically, socially and culturally, and to take part in the full opportunities that a digital world offers when we cannot have reliable mobile connectivity.
Since I might not see you again in the Chair before Christmas, Mr Mundell, I wish you a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Thank you, that is gratefully received. I call the Minister, and remind him that we want to leave a few minutes at the end for Mr Carmichael to wind up.
UK Casino Industry
David Mundell Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK casino industry.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Before I begin, I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
People’s perceptions of casinos often fall into two categories, either James Bond at the Monte Carlo Casino or problem gamblers chasing their next win. For 99% of people, however, that is simply not the reality. Casino goers are just ordinary people enjoying time out with family and friends. They have budgeted an acceptable cost for an evening’s entertainment, which is no different from purchasing an admission ticket to the theatre or attending the football on a Saturday afternoon.
Casinos bring many benefits to local communities. In Great Britain, 13,000 people are directly employed in casinos, with thousands more additional jobs generated in their supply chains. More than half of those working in the gambling industry are under the age of 35, a far higher proportion than in the wider economy, demonstrating the importance of the industry in providing entry-level jobs for young people looking for experience in the workplace.
Hundreds of people in Blackpool are directly employed in the three casinos across the town, as croupiers, waiters, security and chefs. Casinos offer long-term, year-round employment in my constituency, in what is otherwise a tourism-focused and therefore seasonal local economy.
Casinos also make a substantial contribution to the Treasury. In the financial year 2019-20, 128 casinos were operating in this country, paying a total of £213 million in gaming duty. Their contribution to the national economy and the job opportunities created in many towns, therefore, must be taken into account in the upcoming review of the Gambling Act 2005. The review has to be established on the evidence, not on preconceived ideas and ideology.
Scott Benton
Absolutely. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his valid points. I hope that, as part of the review that is ongoing, those points can be addressed. Over the last 14 years or so, it would have been hoped that the experiment that I just alluded to from the 2005 Act would have allowed ordinary casinos to be updated, in terms of their practices and regulation. Disappointingly, that has not happened, but the review offers a golden opportunity to now do exactly that.
I was talking about the number of machines operated in some ordinary casinos. The Hippodrome in Leicester Square is restricted to just 20 machines. That in effect means that during busy periods there can be up to 75 customers in the building for every one gaming machine, which is incredibly perverse. Of course, there is little, if any, evidence to link problem gambling to the number of slot machines available. Gamblers can only play on one machine at a time. And there have not been any such issues from the casinos licensed under the 2005 Act that have substantially more machines. Instead, the lack of available machines means that potential customers face long delays to play and, when they finally are able to play, they feel uncomfortable, knowing that others are waiting to do so as well. In fact, it stops people leaving their machines, through fear of losing their spot—counter-intuitive to safer gambling practice.
Introducing a machine-to-table ratio would relate the number of machines to the size of the casino. That would ensure a suitable number of machines for the size of premises and stop ridiculous scenarios such as that at the Hippodrome. Rank Group, which operates 52 casinos, has suggested starting with a five-to-one ratio to cater for customer demand. The size of a casino, and therefore the number of machines, would be for local authorities to decide during planning applications, which would enable them to ensure a suitable local offering.
Existing laws also limit the choice for customers using gaming machines by restricting electronic versions of casino games to those based on physical events. In effect, that restricts casinos to offering only electronic roulette, as games such as blackjack are much more difficult to offer electronically with the necessary physical event. That makes little sense as there is no identifiable reason that a customer is safer or receives any additional protections from a random physical event rather than a random number generated game. [Interruption.]
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I do not intend to suspend the sitting for the Division in the House because both you, Mr Benton, and the Minister have proxy votes. Let us continue.
Scott Benton
Thank you, Mr Mundell. Legislation fit for the modern-day customer would also enable casinos to offer a wider range of casino games via electronic terminals. That would allow gamblers to play at much lower stakes than on live tables.
A second inconsistency between the 2005 Act and the 1968 Act relates to the ability to offer sports betting. The new legislation allows for sports betting at the casino, yet the historical legislation does not. There is a relatively small number of casinos in the UK compared with the thousands of licensed betting offices. Therefore, any change to legislation to allow sports betting in casinos would have little effect on the betting offices sector. Casinos would not become the favoured place for sports betting, yet they would be able to offer a complementary service to the casino floor. It is archaic and puzzling that casinos cannot offer sports betting when casino customers can simply pick up their phone, open an app and make a sports bet online. There have been no reported issues from casinos that can offer that facility. Yet again, internationally that means we are lagging behind, because that is normally a standard offering in a casino.
It is not just placing bets that people increasingly do electronically. Society is rapidly moving away from using physical cash in all transactions, with electronic payments estimated to be used in up to 80% of transactions in the retail industry. Yet the majority of payments in casinos remain cash-based. No doubt accelerated by the pandemic, in many situations across the UK it is impossible to pay for goods or services with cash. As such, it is scarcely believable that restrictions would bind an industry to cash payments only.
Casinos need to be able to offer a cashless option to keep up with changing customer expectations. The controls on cashless opportunities in casinos are detrimental to business and restrict customer choice. There would be no additional risks to customers, as operators would continue to ensure that safeguards were in place to prevent people from spending beyond their means. That could be similar to the measures casino operators have in place elsewhere.
Other credit issues relate to high-end casinos in Mayfair, which bring in incredibly wealthy individuals from around the globe. Those casinos can accept cheques from players to facilitate the transfer of funds from abroad. However, the future of cheques is constantly in doubt, and some countries have already stopped their use in favour of electronic payments. Without the ability somehow to accept payments from those individuals, casinos would close overnight. Jobs and the significant contributions to the Treasury in gaming duty would be lost, along with the indirect investment and spending brought by those gamblers when they visit the UK. Electronic payments and permitting those casinos to give credit for gambling to high net worth individuals, with robust anti-money laundering controls in place, would make it possible to continue offering that service.
No part of the betting and gaming industry has been as severely affected by the pandemic as land-based casinos. These are small asks that would future-proof the sector while safely increasing what it could offer to consumers. Refusing to bring legislation into the 21st century, and ignoring the demand for gambling by over-regulating the industry, will only see casinos left behind, unable to compete and match the modern-day expectations of customers, which in turn will lead to a decline in jobs and tax revenue, and the sector’s contribution to economic growth. I hope the Minister will address those issues in the review, and I look forward to his response to those points.
The 2005 Act allows for one regional casino, or super-casino as it is sometimes known. A regional casino is defined as having a minimum total customer area of 5,000 square metres, and will be permitted to have up to 1,250 gaming machines. Paul Ward, a hotel operator in my constituency, has experience of working in a large casino abroad, and he has said:
“A super-casino isn’t just about gambling. I worked in a casino in Perth, Western Australia for a while. The employment opportunities were incredible… it created jobs for 1,500 people. The tourism it generated on top was amazing.”
The Government of the time agreed with that assessment and expected that a regional casino would be a major development, offering clear potential for regeneration and bringing in major investment and providing accommodation, as well as conference facilities, restaurants, bars, areas for live entertainment, leisure attractions and, of course, a premium gambling experience.
The primary criteria laid down by the Secretary of State at the time were to ensure that any chosen location would satisfy the need for the best possible social impact, and focus on areas needing regeneration. In a 2019 study comparing 32,000 neighbourhood areas across England, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government looked at income, employment, education, health and a few other factors. All the neighbourhoods were then ranked against each other. The sad result of the study was that eight of the top 10 most deprived neighbourhoods in England are based in Blackpool—a shocking statistic that clearly underlines the desperate need for substantial regeneration in my constituency.
There is widespread support across town for a regional casino. Ian White, a director of the approved hoteliers’ group, StayBlackpool, has said:
“A super-casino, bringing in dynamic investment would stimulate and support a truly year-round economy that the resort needs.”
Following the introduction of the 2005 Act, local authorities could bid for small, large or regional casino licences. Blackpool, of course, was a clear frontrunner to be awarded the regional casino. However, somewhat surprisingly, the panel recommended that it should be awarded to Manchester. Partly owing to that, a statutory instrument that was required to approve its location was defeated in the House of Lords in 2007. The issue has since been swept under the carpet, ignored and never returned to.
The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport looked at casinos in its 2012 report on the Gambling Act, as I am sure the Minister recalls. On regional casinos, the report said that there was
“a general reluctance to discuss the development of regional casinos”.
Perhaps now, 14 years later, the time has come to re-examine the issue. Allow me to share the words of Amanda Thompson OBE, owner and managing director of the Pleasure Beach:
“The creation of a super-casino in Blackpool would herald a new powerful tourism brand for the resort and create a new holiday experience that would be a catalyst for inward investment, supporting growth, development and prosperity across all sectors.”
Although there is clearly no silver bullet to change Blackpool’s fortunes, a super-casino would create many jobs in the town, from contractors working on the site initially to staff at the premises once completed. There would also be a significant boost for local companies that could offer goods and services to the casino, its staff and its customers.
Will the Minister commit himself to reviewing the case for a regional casino during the gambling review and assess the significant positive economic impact that a regional casino could make to a town such as Blackpool, which would be the obvious location to host such a casino?
Spring 2021 Covid-19 Road Map
David Mundell Excerpts(4 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room.
If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerk’s email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room.
We anticipate that there might be a vote in the main Chamber during this debate. If so, I will suspend proceedings for 15 minutes, to allow that vote to take place.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship for the very first time, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for securing this debate at a crucial time for our country, as we look to emerge from this latest lockdown.
As we have heard, the covid pandemic has taken its toll, economically as well as on our nation’s health. Alongside the harm caused by the virus itself, there has been a knock-on impact on people of being confined to their homes for months at a time, unable to exercise in the way they were previously accustomed to. That has led to a rise in obesity and mental health issues, which has placed further strain on our NHS, as well as an increase in the challenging circumstances that millions of people across the country face during the latest lockdown.
There has also been an impact on the leisure and fitness industry, which, like many sectors, has been left in a perilous position after suffering a sharp drop in revenue over the past 12 months. Gyms and fitness clubs should be recognised as wellbeing hubs and given the support they need to survive and to help revive our nation’s flagging physical and mental health.
The demand for this is clear; almost a quarter of a million people signed a petition on the UK Parliament website that calls for gyms to be opened as we come out of lockdown and for a work out to help out scheme to be funded. Such a scheme would see gym memberships, group exercise and personal training subsidised, to give people greater access to health and fitness services. That would give a timely economic boost to the leisure industry, potentially have a positive impact on the NHS in terms of reducing further strain in future, and help lift many gyms and fitness clubs across the country off their knees.
I have met gym, sports and other leisure fitness club owners in my Ilford South consistency, including Louis Lattuca, a franchisee of Anytime Fitness. They were all clear that this could be a huge boost to help them keep their heads well above water in the long term and to protect workers’ jobs when the furlough scheme comes to an end later this year.
This petition closely followed another, which called for gyms to remain open during the tier 4 lockdown, and was signed by a further 180,000 people. It is clear that people are desperate for an outlet to channel their frustration at being confined to their home or workplace, and to improve their physical and mental wellbeing in the process. That is why at ukactive’s national summit last November, Professor Chris Whitty himself stated that exercise and physical activity should play a key role in the UK’s recovery from the pandemic, as well as shape the way our future healthcare plans work going forwards.
Improved physical health not only has a positive impact on mental health, but considerable research, such as from Loughborough University in 2014, also shows that healthier people require fewer days off sick than those who do not keep fit. That can only benefit businesses around the country as we look get the economy moving again.
I know the benefit that exercise can have on the physical and mental wellbeing of an individual from my days in spit-and-sawdust gyms in east London, such as Wag Bennett’s in Forest Gate, where I first started lifting weights and where Arnold Schwarzenegger lived and trained while he was in the UK, and from helping to run a gym in Seven Kings in my east London constituency called Warrens Gym, when I was a young man. Now as a Member of Parliament, I play sport in my capacity as the vice-chair of the Commons and Lords Rugby Union Football Club, and am personally looking forward to getting back into the gyms this summer, and getting my bench press back up 120 kg as soon as I can.
Many sports clubs are at the heart of our communities and have continued to provide a crucial service during the pandemic. For example, Frenford Clubs in my constituency, which does so much for young and disadvantaged people when its doors are open, is now operating as the hub for Redbridge Covid Mutual Aid, which delivers food and vital supplies to some of the most vulnerable people in our borough. However, one of the gyms in my constituency has lost over half its membership over the past 12 months.
In my conversations with not just local gym owners but the chief executives of large leisure chains, I have heard some incredibly sad stories of people even committing suicide because they are so depressed that they cannot get back in and get their health back on track. Despite the Government’s announcing one-off grants worth up to £9,000 per property for the months of January and February, many gyms have not been able to apply because their revenue exceeded £50,000. Two in my constituency missed out by just £1,000 to £2,000, unfortunately. They should be rewarded rather than left without support. The sector is losing £90 million every single week, putting more than 100,000 jobs at risk.
Of further concern is the fact that many fitness businesses do not now expect to make a profit before 2023, with almost 40% of sports facilities surveyed by ukactive at risk of permanent closure. That is why I wrote to the Chancellor last month to request further financial support for the sector, as well as adjustments to business rates. Businesses invested to be covid safe. Although they may not initially have been able to let people through their doors in the same number as prior to the pandemic, having at least a controlled number will be beneficial in the future to a degree.
I echo the calls of many of my constituents in Ilford South to develop a national strategy to encourage people to exercise more and to promote physical and mental health, as called for in the petitions. Exercise will be at the heart of our nation’s recovery from covid, and key to restoring our nation back to fighting fitness.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Tarry. I am sure that we all wish you well with your bench presses. I call Greg Smith.
Covid-19: Restrictions on Gyms and Sport
David Mundell Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there are some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and dispose of them as they leave the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can only speak if they are on the call list. This applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list.
I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that Members stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken. This is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that in so doing, they may prevent Members in seats in the Public Gallery from moving to seats on the horseshoe.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. I am not going to impose a formal time limit at this stage, but to get everybody in Members should stick to approximately four minutes. I call Chris Green.
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.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Pawsey. I am glad that you did not define “old” in that speech.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I was sorry to miss the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and congratulate her on having secured the debate.
We had a few delays in the main Chamber, which I think colleagues have mentioned, but I am glad to be here because we have discovered, as has also been referred to, that sport will be coming back. That is a very welcome development, but it still raises the question of why it was cancelled in the first place, because the one thing we know about sports and exercise is that there is scarcely anything better when it comes to a defence against covid, whether practised by older people or children. A comprehensive ban on an activity that helps against covid is a mystery.
That mystery is deepened further when one considers that outdoor sport was—and at this moment, still is—prevented from taking place as well, especially as the incidence of covid transmission out of doors is virtually unknown across the world. Again, the environment in which we can feel most secure and safe from this dangerous and serious disease is the outdoors. The fact that for the last month the activities that have been enjoyed by our constituents up and down the country have been suppressed for, it seems to me, no good reason is something that we need to learn the lessons of, to prevent this situation from happening again.
However, this is not the first time that this has happened. During the summer, I was supported by Members from all parties in the House when I asked why cricket had again been banned in leisure settings involving children and adult teams across the country. Again, it is difficult to imagine a more covid-secure sport.
On the Select Committee that I chair—the Science and Technology Committee—we know that Professor Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance have both commented on the very low incidence and risk of infection from outdoor sport, and that outdoor sport’s impact on the R rate, in so far as it can be modelled, is negligible. However, one of the things that they said that concerned me was that their advice was at a general level—a strategic level—and they did not give specific advice on activities such as sport. That is a concern because, as has been evidenced by the subscription to and participation in this debate, sport is of great importance to all our constituents. I completely respect the expertise of our leading scientists, but we need to have the ability to influence these decisions, and to scrutinise the evidence that is being adduced to cause lockdowns, and we should not just to have to accept this as a fait accompli.
I hope that the Minister, whose commitment to and passion for sport is known to all Members of the House, can take from this debate a resolution that in the future it will be possible to consider the views of Members and to share with them the evidence on which important decisions are based, so that a return to sport will endure and we will not again be subject to these unexpected and, it seems to me, unnecessary restrictions. I hope that his closing remarks might confirm that the lifting of restrictions that we heard about in the main Chamber today—indeed, just a few moments ago—will extend to spectators at amateur clubs and children’s sporting events.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) referred to Crowborough Athletic Football Club. She will know that the much-awaited derby match between Tunbridge Wells Football Club and Crowborough is on Boxing day. I will be there to support my home team
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.
Greg Clark
Exciting as the occasion will be—indeed, it will be a red letter day—I suspect that there will be social distancing outdoors. I hope that there will be no other restrictions on our being able to support that event and the many other sports that have been referred to in this debate, including rugby, tennis and golf. Indeed, I hope that many of us will be able to enjoy that event on Boxing day and other sporting events on many weekends ahead.
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.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
Order. Members need to come to the horseshoe in order to speak.
Chris Green
A number of colleagues have raised concerns about evidence and data. The Minister talks about the risks that interaction poses. There must now be data and evidence, accumulated over the last nine months. A report could be published and shared on the evidence of the impact that opening clubs and gyms would have on covid transmission.