Media Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

Interesting. The hon. Gentleman obviously appreciates the importance of tidying up.

Sadly, I fear that the importance of children’s TV has been lost in the Bill. There has been a dramatic shift in the viewing habits of young people, particularly children over the age of 7, as increasingly parents no longer control viewing. Coupled with the long-term reduction in commissioning of original UK content for children, I am concerned that the Bill does not go far enough.

The Government must ensure that the next generation does not miss out on the high-quality, culturally relevant storytelling, such as “The Wombles”, for which our generations are so thankful to our public service broadcasters. I think I will develop a Wombles theme now. These programmes have a powerful influence on a child’s development. They provide role models—I am sure the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is an assiduous tidier up as a result of what he watched as a child—inspire ambition and encourage social inclusion. They engage participation in national conversations and develop a child’s understanding, valuing and ownership of what it means to be British.

Children’s TV also makes a significant contribution to the economy and provides quality jobs. It is a key part of our soft power too, promoting tolerance, logic and fair play to children all over the world. The Government must consider the wider consequences for public service broadcasters if children are not consuming as much content as they used to. It is unhelpful for the long-term interests of our public service broadcasters if a generation has little experience of their content. Will the Secretary of State think carefully about how she can work with public service broadcasters to get more quality UK-made children’s content and, crucially, make sure it is as accessible as possible to them?

The Bill is designed to allow current public service broadcasters to fulfil their obligations by taking into account their online delivery platforms, but children also spend a massive proportion of their time on Disney+ or on video-sharing platforms such as YouTube. I urge the Secretary of State to speak with those platforms about how they can provide more quality public service content produced here in the UK.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

There seems to be an excessive amount of advertising on commercial programmes aimed at young children, to the extent that it sometimes seems almost subliminal within the programme. Does my hon. Friend think that area needs to be looked at, because those programmes are using children as a commercial pressure on their parents or guardians?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of work done by the Children’s Media Foundation and I am pleased to note his point. A great concern of mine is that all children’s television and broadcasting ought to be of the highest possible quality. In our country we have that tradition of making great children’s TV.

I am also concerned about the talent pipeline that PSBs rely on. For the past 13 years, successive Tory Governments have failed to understand the importance of creative education for economic growth and jobs. We get announcements with no follow-up, which means they have not taken the issue at all seriously. Government adverts patronised creatives, suggesting that ballerinas should retrain in cyber.

Complementing the aims of the Bill, Labour will back the next generation of creative talent that we know our PSBs need if they are to fulfil the promise offered by the Bill. We will equip the workforce with the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to sustain PSBs and the wider creative industries, which are so necessary to fulfil the pipeline. There will be a broad and balanced education for every child, who will have access to high-quality arts, culture and creativity under a future Labour Government.

I recognise the unique and vital role of the independent sector, as set out in the Bill. As MP for Bristol West, the home of BBC Wildlife, some Channel 4 studios and many creative industries that supply and work for them, I know how important PSBs are, or can be, for driving inward investment into communities across our country. I have seen for myself in my patch how that can stimulate the supply chain and the resilience of the local economy, but I want more for this industry across the country from this Government.

Finally, I welcome the measures in the Bill to give S4C, the Welsh language broadcaster, more flexibility in the modern world, and I welcome the comments that my hon. Friends have made about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I welcome this debate, and I strongly welcome the departure from the idea of selling off and privatising Channel 4. It has been a very good channel that continues to do a lot of innovative things. That it can develop its own content can only be a good thing, as it shows the importance of public service broadcasting.

We should reflect that the Bill is going in the direction of proper regulation of the media, while recognising the value and importance of public service broadcasting. We should compare that with the United States, which, since the second world war, has systematically defunded public service broadcasting and has ended up with news values essentially dominated by Fox News and nothing else. We should value the principle of public service broadcasting.

I am particularly pleased that Gaelic and Welsh-language stations are not only protected but supported by the Bill, as they have greatly increased the speaking of Gaelic and Welsh, enhancing and developing the culture of both Scotland and Wales.

Many of us often criticise journalists, but we very much value the idea of a free press and a free media, which we do not always appear to have. We should think a little more about the multiple ownership of different media outlets across TV, newspapers, radio and so on.

The Bill is also about trying to keep up with changing technology and a changing media landscape. There was a time when radio was one thing, television was another, social media had not been invented and newspapers were completely separate from all of them. All of those are now essentially merged into one, in some way or another: radio interviews are televised and newspaper articles appear on websites, often with videos. That is not a bad thing—it is often a good thing—but there is a universality to the media, and many people get their information from online sources.

However, we should be slightly cautious because we, in this Chamber, are all media obsessives, I suppose. We probably read newspapers and listen to current affairs programmes more than anybody else in our society, so it is easy to forget that a significant proportion of the population does not watch very much television, has no access to smart phones, does not know how to use a computer and is completely lost in a digital divide. Those people are increasingly isolated and left behind. The Bill does not pretend to give an answer to that. I am not sure there is a simple answer, but we should recognise that a growing proportion of the population—not huge, but significant—often loses out on all kinds of information as a result.

I will briefly address the question of news values. I believe there is a high degree of bias in the way that a lot of news is reported in our media, notably international reporting on global affairs. If something happens in the USA, Europe or whatever war is being followed at that time, be it the horrors of Gaza or Ukraine, that is news, but if something happens in much of Africa, Latin America or south Asia, it is simply not reported at all. The huge conflict going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo receives almost zero coverage in any of our written or broadcast media. The problems of, say, indigenous communities in Ecuador receive no coverage either.

We need to think about how we can encourage all our media to have a more global view when they report globally. The BBC has cut back on its global coverage significantly. It cannot afford to have journalists all around the world, so it puts them in the best known places—Brussels, Washington and so on—and has cut back on many other places. The only global channel that currently tries to report on the whole world is al-Jazeera, which is funded entirely by the Qatar Government and royal family. We need diversity in broadcasting as well as in the way in which the news is chosen. That applies to many other issues as well, including the reporting of environmental affairs and debates about global warming.

Commercial media is driven by the need to make money to survive, so it has no great incentive to do anything other than entertainment, because that is what brings in the audience and advertising. It does not necessarily provide information and education for the population. I realise Ofcom has to do a difficult balancing act, but we should be aware that the majority of the population no longer looks at the two alternatives most of us in the Chamber grew up with—the BBC and ITV—but at a whole plethora of different news outlets. Therefore, those people have a wide variety of news issues thrown at them.

A number of colleagues have raised issues about local journalism and local papers, which also appear heavily online. I once worked in a genuinely local paper—it was printed on the same site where we wrote the stories and it was part of the community. It then became part of a bigger group, then another bigger group and then an even bigger group. Local papers across the country are actually not local at all. They are owned by a media group in a distant place and, if they are lucky, there are one or two journalists in the town in question and they live largely by press releases.

My friend, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), quite rightly commended the West Highland Free Press for its work. I remember that it was set up because of a lack of local reporting. There was a very serious determination by those who set it up to ensure that it was a genuinely independent paper that covered a huge part of Scotland and that was able to build community strengths and links with it, and I think that the paper has been very successful in doing that.

A long distance away and in a completely different kind of community, the Camden New Journal group, which also includes the Islington Tribune and other enterprises, is, again, a wholly independent group set up by the journalists who worked on the paper when the previous owners essentially walked away from it. It is independent, it is local, and it is co-operatively run. It is also very, very successful, because it concentrates completely on the news and stories within the local community and tries to bring them forward.

Having newspapers and radio stations that cover all languages is also very important. We have talked about Scotland and Wales, but there is also a plethora of communities in this country who want to hear stuff in their own language. I remember speaking in this House, probably from this very spot, in the 1980s, trying to defend London Greek Radio, which was set up as an independent Greek-speaking radio station. It was raided 74 times by the Post Office and all its broadcasting equipment was taken away—goodness knows what happened to the 74 items of broadcasting equipment. Eventually the station was given a licence, and it is now a very successful Greek language radio station. There are many other language radio stations all across the country, which is important. It is important for people growing up in bilingual communities to be able to listen to things in their own language, and for young people to feel that sense of belonging to the Greek, to the Turkish, to the Somali or to any other community, as well as being able to communicate in English. That to me is the great value of local radio stations.

My final point is about social media. When I go to meetings, I often ask people how many of them ever buy a newspaper. If the audience has nobody in it over the age of 50, no hand goes up. Younger people simply do not buy newspapers at all—they have no relationship with them. They rely completely on social media for their news, information and ideas. We all access social media. We are all driven in social media by various algorithms, some of which are owned by people far away, who have patented those algorithms. They follow us, they follow our interests and they decide what news we ought to have. It is hardly a free media when we are directed to the news that somebody wants us to hear. It is not simple. It is not simple to regulate on what algorithms do, but we should be extremely well aware of it.

We should also be aware that it is possible to set up a radio station—unless I am wrong about this Bill—that is purely online. There is no regulation of it whatsoever, other than the basics of libel law and things such as that. That is an area that will grow. It is an area that is increasing, and some of the online radio stations have very large audiences indeed. Some of them are very good, and some of them less so, but we must be aware of that and the need in the longer term for further regulation and control of the behaviour of algorithms and how they can influence opinion—politically, socially and commercially—and everything else in our lives.

We should just take a moment to think of the bravery of many journalists around the world, including those who have been killed in Gaza over the past few weeks; those who are in prison in Egypt, in Russia and in a number of other countries; and those who risk everything in order to try to get the news out. They need support and protection in every way possible.

I would also like to put it on record that we should reflect quite seriously on the situation facing one of the world’s best-known investigative journalists—that of Julian Assange, who has now spent almost five years in a maximum security prison for revealing uncomfortable truths about Iraq and other places. Journalism at its best tells us the truth. At its worst, it is propaganda for somebody else and somebody very, very powerful.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), in particular his comments about the bravery of journalists covering conflict around the world today.

It is very doubtful that there will be a Division on the Bill this evening. We have had something of a love-in, with contributions from all parties saying that they support the Bill. I do not want to shatter that consensus, but I am going to do so. Although it is clear that the Opposition are not going to divide the House on Second Reading, I must say to them that, had they chosen to do that, I would have supported them. I would have done so purely because of the strength of my feelings about clause 50, which repeals section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I believe consistency in this place matters, even though it might sometimes be elusive. The truth is that section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act was part of a Conservative-drafted compromise following the Leveson inquiry. It was a compromise in which I had a hand, and I am not about to vote against it, today or at any other point.

The reason I supported the thrust of the Leveson proposals at the time was not despite my being a Conservative, but because I am a Conservative, and true Conservatives believe in accountability. It is true Conservatives who, throughout history, have faced down powerful vested interests and it is true Conservatives who will always look out for the underdog, whatever the consequences might be. The Leveson inquiry followed decades of failure on the part of the press to engage seriously with self-regulation, and the craven failure of this House over 70 years to act on the findings of no fewer than seven inquiries and Royal Commissions set up during that time.

It is often the case that we never quite know when something that is known to be a problem will become a big story—a running story, as we call it in the media. It was the hacking of the phone of Milly Dowler, the murdered schoolgirl, that made this House decide to act. Therefore it was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time who condemned the Press Complaints Commission as wholly ineffective. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who set up the inquiry. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who chose Lord Justice Leveson to lead that inquiry—in part because Lord Justice Leveson was recognised as somebody who respected the press and believed passionately in the freedom of the press, and could therefore be relied upon to come up with a sensible set of proposals.

It was a Conservative Prime Minister who wrote the terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry and a Conservative Prime Minister who said that that inquiry should make policy recommendations to the Government. When that report came back, it was a Conservative Prime Minister who stated on the Floor of this House that we could not just say, “Let’s have one last chance saloon for the press again.”, because we had done that. When that report landed—all 1,800 pages, in four volumes—my noble Friend Lord Cameron, then Prime Minister, asked Oliver Letwin to work out a way to implement the proposals of the Leveson inquiry.

There followed a series of compromises to accommodate some of the concerns of the press. First, while Lord Leveson had recommended that there should be a statutory body, preferably Ofcom, that would act as the recognition body, that was seen to be problematic by the press. So Oliver Letwin came up with the rather ingenious idea of establishing a Royal Charter for the self-regulation of the press. The press then raised concerns that a future Government might be able unilaterally to change the terms of that charter simply by bringing forward Orders in Council. We accepted that that was a very fair concern. Paradoxically, the press then asked whether Parliament could safeguard the integrity of the Royal Charter by ensuring that it could be amended or removed only if there were a super-majority of both Houses of Parliament and, in addition to that, a super-majority in the Scottish Parliament.

Finally, there was a lot of discussion about the editors’ code and who should hold the pen. The media felt that existing editors should always hold the pen on the editors’ code, which was contrary to what Lord Leveson had suggested. Again, however, to carry the press with us—as it had said that it would work with us if we made the concessions that it wanted—we made that final concession to ensure that the editors’ code would always be written by the newspaper industry, not by any other independent body.

At various stages during those multiple concessions, Oliver Letwin asked me whether I would help to broach conversations with the Opposition parties with a view to forming a cross-party consensus on the matter, and I did so in good faith. At this point, I pay particular tribute to the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who was at that time the shadow Secretary of State, and to the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, for the way in which they approached the issue. The easiest thing for any Opposition to do is simply to oppose everything for the sake of it, but on that issue, they recognised the importance of trying to arrive at a consensus in Parliament for the good of civil society.

I hope that you will not mind if I pay tribute to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your former guise as Opposition Chief Whip. I remember attending one meeting where it was somewhat presumed that I would be able to turn up on the night with 70 Conservative rebels to defeat the Government. You probably saw the anguish on my face at the daunting prospect of having to do such a thing. You made everybody else in the room aware that Whips’ Offices can, when they put their minds to it, be pretty good at burning off opposition.

It is true that the victims of phone hacking were quite concerned about the level of compromise that politicians were making on their behalf. I remember Hugh Grant being particularly sceptical of that. We got him in and said, “Trust us; we are going to do this. This is a cross-party consensus: all parties are signed up to it. It will happen.” It is disappointing that, a decade on, Hugh Grant is being proved right because of the Government’s actions through the Bill.

Some months after we had put in place the royal charter for the self-regulation of the press, I met Sir Alan Moses, who was the first inaugural chairman of the Independent Press Standards Organisation, the industry’s own regulator. I remember saying to Sir Alan, “IPSO is making good progress. It is an improvement on the PCC. It wouldn’t have to do a great deal more in order for it to be a recognised regulator. Why doesn’t IPSO simply seek recognition?” He said, “George, I completely agree with you. However, my contract of employment forbids me from saying so publicly.” How is that for the freedom of speech that we hear so much about? Sir Alan Moses, the inaugural chairman of IPSO, was subject to a gagging order, no less, that prevented him from saying what he believed to be true.

Let me turn to the specifics of section 40, which put in place one of the key provisions of Leveson’s recommendations: the creation of incentives for an industry regulator to seek recognition. That is often misunderstood, for the provisions of section 40 are symmetrical: not only does it protect innocent people who want redress and access to a process of arbitration, but it protects publishers from people with deep pockets who go to lawyers such as Carter-Ruck or Schillings and threaten litigation—through so-called SLAPPs—to intimidate and bully publishers and prevent them from publishing things. Had we put that in place and commenced section 40, if a Russian oligarch, for instance, had said, “If you print that, I will see you in court,” and all sorts of injunctions came forth from various lawyers, a publisher would have been able to say, “No, you won’t. We will see you in arbitration.” That would have protected genuine investigative journalism in a way that has never been done before.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. He must be aware that the laws relating to libel and so on are completely misshapen, in that it is totally a rich person’s game. Anyone without resources gets threatened with libel and is silenced immediately. They have no recourse to legal aid and no other way of dealing with the situation other than either to accept something they believe to be wrong or to make themselves bankrupt trying to defend themselves.

World Press Freedom Day

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]]

I compliment the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for securing the debate and on the way in which he introduced the subject. It is absolutely crucial and essential to all our lives that we think seriously about what press freedom actually means. In any free society, the right to know, the right to speak and the right to assemble are important and precious, and indeed are encapsulated in the 1948 universal declaration of human rights.

In considering press freedom, we should also look at media ownership and control, and the concentration of media ownership into a small number of global companies that impose news values on their outlets, which are not necessarily very open and which are often not interested in many of the poorest parts of the world but only in celebrity and the goings on in the wealthiest parts of the world. It is important that we recognise the importance of the right to know, and therefore the importance of diversity of ownership and diversity of access to the media.

As the hon. Gentleman quite correctly pointed out, many people now get most of their information from online sources, through social media and associated outlets. Many people simply do not buy newspapers and do not access newspaper websites or anything else. They rely completely on news that they believe they select themselves from various websites around the world, but they are often unaware of the complex, complicated and very efficient algorithms used to drive people in certain directions on certain stories and news issues.

We must look not only at the freedom of journalists and the importance of independent ownership of all media outlets, but at making social media accessible to everyone. Social media companies have shown themselves to be very happy to operate with authoritarian and oppressive regimes and close down access altogether to certain individuals. For example, in the middle of their strike action in Delhi, Indian farmers suddenly found that they had no access whatsoever to social media, which was a crucial outlet for them. Social media is restricted in a number of countries, and Google and others are quite happy to do deals with national Governments in order to restrict access to information. These things have to be looked at seriously and carefully. We need international agreement on this, which I will come on to in a moment.

I have in front of me the “White Paper on Global Journalism”, produced by the International Federation of Journalists, of which I am a member, in the sense that I am a member of the National Union of Journalists in Britain. This report makes for chilling reading. Since 1990, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, 2,650 journalists have been killed around the world. Those are the ones we know of—there may well be more. A good friend of mine, Anabel Hernández, a Mexican journalist, launched a book called “The Sorrows of Mexico” with Lydia Cacho and others at the Edinburgh international book festival three years ago. I was there. She described what she had gone through in preparing the book and in writing about the power of drug cartels, corrupt police forces and the role of the military. She described the threats made to her:

“Ever since, I have lived with 24 hour protection, if you can call that living.”

The threat never goes away. On 21 December 2014, a dozen men, armed with AK47 rifles and handguns, closed off the street where Hernández lived, and started asking her neighbours in which house the journalist lived. They deactivated the security cameras in the immediate area, including those installed in her house. She was lucky that day, because she was not at home; she was away. That is the kind of life that she and other very brave journalists live in Mexico, in Colombia, in Egypt and in other countries where journalists are consistently under threat.

We mourn those who have been killed, but there are many others in jail and the threat of jailing journalists is a form of censorship. Many of the world’s Governments know that by consistently threatening journalists, they will either tone down their reporting or simply not report what is going on where corruption, drug cartels and so on are involved. There is a kind of league table of journalists who are in prison. Globally, there are 235 of them in prison—those are the ones we know of —including 67 in Turkey, 21 in Egypt and 20 in China. They are all people who have been imprisoned because they were trying to report the truth.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed out what happened to Roman Protasevich. Obviously, it is appalling that the plane was effectively hijacked and he was taken to Belarus because he had been writing stories that were critical of its regime. Obviously, action should be taken. I am a member of the Council of Europe and my fellow members and I will make our views very well known at subsequent meetings. Unfortunately, Belarus is not a member of the Council of Europe; it is the only European country that is not a member.

Our complaints and objections about the way in which Roman Protasevich is being treated would be far more credible if the London Stock Exchange was not at the same time hosting financial servicing arrangements and opportunities to raise cash for the Belarussian Government. If we are serious about press freedom and freedoms in general, we must think very carefully about what financial institutions and others are doing.

The terrible events in Gaza and the west bank over the last few weeks and the loss of life of people both in Israel and in Palestine are obviously shocking and appalling. It is also very clear that the bombing was very effectively and efficiently targeted in Gaza. Two towers were taken out completely; they were demolished by targeted bombing. They included the offices of al-Jazeera and a number of other journalistic outlets in the region, so they could no longer effectively report what was happening in Gaza. Some brave journalists managed to use satellite phones and so on to keep in communication, but they were reporting while under fire from Israel that was quite clearly targeting those places where journalists were trying to report the reality of what is going on. And Yousef Abu Hussein, a young journalist, was killed during that whole process.

In this debate I hope that we can reflect on the bravery of journalists around the world—those who seek to speak truth to power and who try to tell us the truth about what is happening around the world. We all love newspapers; we all love news and information. However, we need to make sure that those who collect and gather that information—irritating as they often are to politicians; that is the world in which we live—are a crucial part of any democratic society.

The work done by the International Federation of Journalists and others in trying to get global agreement on the protection of journalists is very important. It is also important that the United Nations Human Rights Council continues its work on protecting journalists, and that we have an effective protection mechanism for journalists all around the world. Too many have died, too many are in prison and too many are frightened to report the news they ought to be reporting, because they are scared of what will happen to them if they do so.

We should not be complacent about our own society, either, because often in Parliament we have this sense of complacency that bad things—

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

May I ask the right hon. Member for Islington North to bring his speech to a conclusion, please? Thank you.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I apologise, Ms Ghani. I was not aware that there was a time limit. I will briefly say this. In our complacency, let us not forget brave people who have blown the whistle on the truth around the world. I think of Julian Assange and the work he has done in exposing what has happened around the world in preparation for war and other things. In some countries, he would be called a hero for being a whistleblower; here, he is called something very different. We should think of what news values and freedom of speech values are actually all about. Thank you for the opportunity to speak, Ms Ghani.

Arsène Wenger

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman]

There is indeed no cure for it, Mr Speaker. We can only hope.

I am delighted to be opening the debate. I want to focus on a number of contributions that Arsène Wenger has made in different spheres. First, I want to touch on his vast input in making the game the financial export that it is for this country. While it is true that we do not export as much as we once did, football is one of the industries that we export exceptionally well. I believe that it is the fastest-growing export across the globe. A recent study revealed that the annual revenue from Premier League clubs had hit almost £5 billion, double the combined total revenue from the leagues in Italy and Spain. Premier League clubs contributed £2.4 billion to the Exchequer, and are responsible for the creation of 100,000 jobs in this country. The strength of their appeal abroad is demonstrated not just by the £3.2 billion of rights sold overseas, but by what will happen in the next three years. China, for example, is bidding 14 times the previous value.

I observed the strength of this export last weekend, when I was in the small African country of Djibouti—the 14th poorest country in the globe, where there is terrible poverty. The young boys and girls whom I met were not only kicking a football around with great joy, but wearing the shirts of the premiership clubs more than those of any other league. In particular, they were wearing a lot of Arsenal strips. I was there with UNICEF, supporting Soccer Aid in the work it does in countries like Djibouti.

With his brand of attacking football, there was a tripling of our global fan base across the world, and I would argue that a large part of the success and the money that has been put into the Exchequer is down to Arsène Wenger. I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition, another great Arsenal fan, has joined us, and I would be happy, if it is not against convention, to take an intervention from him.

Arsène Wenger has also contributed to the changing culture and behaviour within sport. It was put very well by one of our former players, and a great hero of mine, Ray Parlour, who revealed the full extent of the horror of the once notorious drinking culture at Arsenal in the following way:

“I’ll always remember the first pre-season tour with Arsène Wenger. New French lads had come into the team. We worked our socks off and at the end of the trip Wenger said we could all go out. We went straight down to the pub and the French lads went to the coffee shop. I’ll always remember the moment Steve Bould went up to the bar and ordered 35 pints for five of us. After we left the bar”—

I am amazed he can still remember this—

“we spotted all the French lads in the coffee shop and they were sitting around smoking, I thought how are we going to win the league this year? We’re all drunk and they’re all smoking, and we ended up winning the double that year.”

Much of the reason for this end-of-season transformation is summed up by another Arsenal great, Lee Dixon, who said of Arsène Wenger:

“There is no doubt he changed the face of English football. He was the first. It was all him. His legacy is not only Arsenal based. It is English football-based because of where the game was when he came in and how clubs and players operated. The physiology side of the game, the social side, training—he came in and ripped up the handbook. Everybody said, ‘Who is this fella?’ and the next minute they were all copying him.

The advancements in terms of science and facilities and all the support available for elite athletes is testament to him. I truly believe he pushed the button to start all of that. It is easy to lose track of the fact he was the great innovator.”

And so he was.

The third point is how Arsène Wenger built our club in the modern era and balanced its books, rather than using the largesse of petrodollars and oligarchs to do so. In 2004, Arsenal not only won the third of Arsène Wenger’s premiership titles but, as we have mentioned, went the entire season unbeaten. Never one to rest on their laurels, Arsène Wenger and the Arsenal hierarchy recognised that to close the gap on the richer clubs around us, the club had to increase its stadium revenue.

Highbury, which gave me the greatest pleasure over my years as an Arsenal fan sitting at the clock end, had a capacity of only 38,000, half that enjoyed by our rivals Manchester United in 2006 at Old Trafford. The move to the Emirates Stadium was funded by the sale of Highbury to housing, increases in match-day and commercial revenue and, sadly, selling one or two of our best players each year, all to balance the books. It could be said that Arsène Wenger was the forerunner of former Chancellor George Osborne, with perhaps the difference being that Arsène really did balance the books.

Unfortunately for us, our rivals did not need to look at such sound economics to underpin their transformation because something else that we did not know about was afoot at that time: everything changed when Roman Abramovich arrived at Chelsea in 2003. Of course, he was not the first sugar daddy to arrive in English football, but he was the first who seemed to have and fund a bottomless pit. I recall our former vice-chairman, David Dein, capturing the scene when—[Interruption.] Great man indeed. When, as you may remember, Mr Speaker, Chelsea put in a bid for the great Thierry Henry, David Dein joked:

“Roman Abramovich has parked his Russian tanks on our lawn and is firing £50 notes at us.”

Fortunately, we did not sell Thierry.

Where Abramovich began, Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City continued, and others from the international playgrounds have joined in. Some owners paid for a plaything and some of those clubs paid for it by going to the wall—Portsmouth being one such example. West Ham did not even have to bother paying for a stadium at all, and I would contend that it barely pays for its stadium now. All this careful financial planning and prudent investment has been diminished by the flow of foreign cash, which could not have been foreseen. I am proud that the club that Arsène Wenger built washes its own face with the highest matchday revenue in the world and not, as he infamously put it, via financial doping from wealthy individuals based in countries with dubious records on human rights and worse.

Arsène Wenger’s fourth contribution was his ability to be the best of talent from abroad. We have embraced him and he has embraced us. It may seem hard to believe today, but when he took over at Arsenal, only one other premiership club had a foreign manager in place: Ruud Gullit at Chelsea. Arsène Wenger was the first foreign manager to win the league. In taking a great British institution and enhancing it with flair, ideas and panache honed in France and Japan, he has shown not only what talent from abroad can do to deliver change in this country but what our country can do to embrace those from abroad.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate. As the MP who represents the Arsenal stadium—the old and the new—I have been through the pain and the pleasure of the building of the new stadium. Throughout the whole time that Arsène Wenger has been manager, he has ensured that Arsenal has made an enormous contribution to the local community. Arsenal in the Community has been very successful for local grounds and clubs all over the borough. I have never forgotten taking a large group of primary school children to the Arsenal stadium one evening, where Arsène Wenger gave them a very interesting talk about how he had learned English. He told them that they should all learn foreign languages in order to create a more generous and peaceful world. He has a wonderful ability to communicate with people of all ages and all footballing abilities. I think that the future of football has to be community based, with much greater fan participation in the running of our clubs.

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think it is fair to say that those words do not come out of my mouth often, but he is absolutely right about what Arsenal does for the community. It has always been a special community club. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, when we had violence in our stadiums in times gone by, all stadiums had fencing round the edge of the pitch, but Arsenal never did. It was the only club that did not have fencing, because it was always community based. It was also the first football club to become a Disability Confident club. It has always been a pioneer in its community, and it has also ensured great diversity. Our fans have always had that diversity, and it should therefore be no surprise that a manager should come from abroad and that we should embrace him as one of our own. I believe that Arsène Wenger is the best example of successful immigration in this country, and I would like to think that it is thanks to him that immigration is widely proclaimed as doing fantastic things for this country. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments.

The fifth element is not so much a contribution as the part that I find so sad about the end state for our great manager. This relates to the challenges that many people now face from social media and the prioritising of the demand for instant results over time and reasonableness. Everyone has an opinion now, no matter how qualified or otherwise they might be, and complex technical analysis is now delivered in one word and a hashtag. As a traditional fan, I almost wonder whether football is now passing me by, when there is so much anger, menace and vitriol being poured out on social media. This cannot do anyone any good.

It saddens me that the latter years of Arsène Wenger’s reign coincided with the rise of social media platforms that were incredibly unfair to him and that, after he had delivered so much to our club, he should be subject to jeering at the railway station in Stoke-on-Trent, for example, with fans chanting “Wenger out” after everything he had done to earn their respect. I felt ashamed to be a fan of the club if those people were also professing to be fans. I worry that our leaders in sport, industry, public services and, indeed, politics are now subject to a 24/7 barrage of abuse in which they are told that they are wrong and everyone else is right. They are not allowed to have an opinion or to stand on their own record. What will that do to encourage others to take their place?

Despite failing with her political beliefs, my mother successfully indoctrinated me with a love of Arsenal that I have to this day. There are 100 million of us across the globe. Some have great notoriety: the Trump family, Osama bin Laden and—it gets even worse for the Arsenal PR team—Piers Morgan.