Community Sport Facilities

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I will call Andy MacNae to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered community sport facilities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I am grateful for the Minister’s attendance today, and for all the work that she and the Government are doing to champion community sports facilities. I and many colleagues believe that easily accessible sports facilities have a huge untapped potential to contribute not just to the vibrancy of communities, but to the missions that the Government have set out to achieve. To deliver on that, we need to align funding and partnerships with need, opportunity and impact.

As a non-statutory service, local leisure provision has been disproportionately hit by years of austerity. That is especially true in the case of smaller local authorities, which lack the capacity and resilience to mitigate the cuts. The impact is particularly felt in our small towns, where hollowed-out local services amplify the feeling of being left behind. Young people in small towns rightly say, “There is nothing here for us to do,” looking with envy towards distant big towns and cities and asking, “Why do they always seem to get the money?” In this debate I will argue that we must have an approach to sports and leisure that properly values the benefits of active lives while addressing the increasing inequality of provision and being agile enough to respond to opportunity when it comes. I will start by considering the wide-ranging benefits and impacts in support of our missions.

First, well-tailored sports programmes centred around local facilities can help to drive economic growth and unlock opportunity. We know that sport builds confidence and resilience in young people, equipping them for work and helping them to break down the barriers to opportunity. If we want to see the next generation thrive, they need the confidence to seize the opportunities before them. Regular sports and physical activity provide an excellent way of embedding that confidence while growing teamwork and leadership skills. The Youth Sport Trust has provided strong evidence for that, demonstrating that sport is a key predictor of children’s self-confidence and resilience, with girls receiving an even greater positive impact from sports than boys.

The trust finds that the economic value of providing physical activity in primary schools alone is worth at least £4 billion under the Treasury’s wellbeing measures, but the economic benefits of physical activity through improving health, wellbeing and resilience are doubled for children who are either disabled or receiving free school meals. In addition, sports can provide strong and unique incentives for people to continue coming to school. RugbyWorks supports young people excluded from mainstream education; its term-time programme offers participation in key stage 3 and key stage 4, with a year-long intervention underpinned by the four pillars of its theory of change, including developing life skills, raising aspirations, improving physical wellbeing and focusing on mental wellbeing.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again so swiftly, Sir Jeremy. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) on securing this important debate. I know he has a great interest and passion for this subject, having already met him and discussed it. I will touch on some of his work later in my remarks.

Grassroots sports clubs are at the heart of communities up and down the country. They are places where millions of people play sport and get active every week, families share lifelong memories, barriers are broken down and friendships are made. High-quality, inclusive facilities are central to that. This Government are committed to ensuring that every community across the country has access to outstanding community sports facilities.

The benefits of being physically active and participating in sport are well known. We know that even relatively small increases in physical activity can contribute to improved health and quality of life, and that it is good for both our physical and mental health. More than that, we know that community sport can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion. As things stand, not enough people are active or participating in sport. This Government are committed to getting more people active, regardless of their backgrounds, maximising the power of sport to empower diverse local communities.

It was great to attend the Football Association’s Made for this Game event in Parliament last week, part of their campaign to empower girls in schools across the country to get involved in sport. I am also looking forward to supporting the FA’s campaign next Friday, closer to home in Barnsley, for their fourth annual Biggest Ever Football Session. These are great examples of grassroots sports being open and accessible for all.

To ensure solid foundations, the Government have committed to investment in facilities that support local communities to take part in sport and physical activity, and to a review of the school curriculum that will consider the future of physical education and school sport. The Government’s approach brings in a range of Departments and public sector organisations. Sport has a central role to play in delivering in our missions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen mentioned. The health and the opportunity mission boards are bringing Departments together to ensure that action is taken around preventive health and ensuring that all children have equal opportunity, to support the country to be more physically active. My Department is representing the voice of community sport in these discussions.

The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools, sports halls, pitches and community spaces. It can help to create a sense of pride in place and improve community cohesion, whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons. We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen knows that. Today and in previous months, he has made a powerful and passionate case for the important role that high-quality and accessible community facilities can play in his constituency. By securing the debate, he has illustrated his commitment. He works closely with his local councils and takes a keen interest in their ambitions to improve the community facilities for his constituents, as evidenced in the recent sport and physical activity strategy, published by Rossendale borough council. I understand that like other local authorities—including my own—it is facing significant pressures after the past 14 years. I heard my hon. Friend’s thoughts about funding and deprivation. While local authorities are responsible for decisions about sport and leisure provision in their areas, we recognise the challenges they face, especially smaller councils, as my hon. Friend rightly pointed out.

The Government are taking immediate action to begin to address those challenges by ensuring, in the latest local Government finance settlement, that funding goes to the places that need it most. Overall, the provisional settlement ensured that in core spending power, local government will receive a real-terms increase of about 3.2%, and I am committed to working to support our leisure sector up and down the country.

My Department is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually into some of the most deprived areas of the country to help to increase physical activity levels. Sport England has taken a place-based investment approach, working with local authorities and active partnerships, to encourage system-wide change, and we have recently announced plans to extend its work into a further 53 communities across the country to ensure that those in greatest need can be active.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will agree that it is great to see that his constituency is part of Sport England’s Pennine Lancashire place partnership. That work places the community at the heart of decision making, including those small-town communities that my hon. Friend champions. He gave some great examples and kindly invited me to visit them; I would be delighted to accept.

The benefits of investing in community sport and physical activity were brought to life last week, when Sport England announced new figures showing that every £1 spent on community sport and physical activity generates more than £4 for the English economy and society. The Government recognise that high-quality, inclusive facilities help ensure that everyone has access to sport. We will continue to support grassroots sport, including through the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, which has involved investing £123 million across the UK in this financial year, and which leverages significant funding contributions from both the FA and the premier league. That funding is structured to prioritise areas that need it the most, taking into account local inactivity rates and deprivation.

Funding from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme continues to be invested in England through Sport England and our delivery partner, the Football Foundation, which plan their investment pipeline based on local football facility plans. Those plans have been developed in partnership with local authorities and are in the process of being refreshed to reflect the current landscape.

While facilities are no doubt vital for community sport, it is the people who really make the difference. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers who give up their time, whatever the weather, to make community sport happen. Volunteers are the lifeblood of sport and physical activity. Every day, night and weekend, people can learn, play sport and get active, thanks to others giving up their time to facilitate it. Volunteers are vital to achieving a vibrant and resilient civil society, and sport accounts for more than 50% of all volunteering in the UK. One volunteer creates the capacity for at least eight and a half more people to participate—a fabulous statistic. Volunteering connects communities and is an essential means of supporting grassroots sport. As well as providing the capacity for people to take part in sport, volunteering also benefits the health and wellbeing of volunteers themselves.

Sport and physical activity are central to preventive health, and the biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive, or less active, to move more. There is an evidenced direct correlation of increased activity levels in the areas of the country with the highest density of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen that we must, therefore, ensure that those facilities exist and are accessible, as a key lever to getting people active and to help in tackling health inequalities. Around 23% of people in Rossendale and Darwen are inactive, and we want to see that figure come down; I know it is higher in my own area of Barnsley. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to the NHS, preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. For publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities, we want to look at the potential to support communities on health needs in particular. We are looking at how co-location between sport and health services could help inactive groups.

I recently saw co-location in action in Essex, where local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between the health and leisure sectors, including by co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. It means that, for example, people with long-term health conditions can access activities that not only improve their physical health but are fun and social. I heard some amazing stories on my visit there. I have also seen the impact of community facilities in my constituency of Barnsley South. Your Space Hoyland, for example, is just up the road from my office and I have visited a number of times. It provides swimming, football, badminton and a range of services that support my constituents.

There are multiple examples of similar work around the country. GoodGym is adapting to tackle the increase in isolation and loneliness by offering opportunities to combine physical exercise with volunteering and providing ongoing support to individuals. As the Minister responsible for tackling loneliness, I am keen to see what more the Government can do in this space. I recently held a roundtable with a number of organisations working on loneliness, and I will work to drive further progress in the coming months.

My Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking as we look ahead to future policy around community sport and leisure facilities, as they contribute towards genuinely tackling a range of different issues, whether that be inactivity and inequality, health, or crime and antisocial behaviour, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. Across all those examples, one thing is clear: having high-quality, safe, affordable facilities is vital. But more importantly, it is the people who make those facilities genuine community hubs, and this Government are committed to ensuring that facilities are built with the community at their heart.

We appreciate the huge contribution that publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities make to health and wellbeing. I am hugely passionate about that agenda; I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has made an important contribution today, championing his area, and I thank him for that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister, who has worked a double shift this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Market Towns: Cultural Heritage

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank the hon. Member for introducing the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that if they want to contribute, they should keep bobbing so I know. I am afraid insights will have to be limited to about two and a half minutes if we are to get everyone in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this debate.

I am proud to represent Hertford and Stortford, home to a number of significant market towns steeped in such history that many of them appeared in the Domesday Book. Hertford is my home; I am privileged to have grown up there. My parents moved to Hertford in the late 1990s because they wanted me to have the very best start in life. Parliamentary scholars will know that when plague overran London in the 1500s, Parliament moved to Hertford castle, where the gatehouse is now home to Hertford town council, on which I proudly once served.

Hertford’s old Corn Exchange, which once linked us to the corn markets of London, has been reborn as a live music venue called simply the Corn Exchange, serving the lively local music and arts scene that produced talents like George Ezra and Rupert Grint. Residents are proud of our weekly charter market in Salisbury Square. Our town centre, in which I found my first job, is home to a diverse offering of independent shops, pubs and restaurants.

Bishop’s Stortford has contributed more than its fair share of musical talent, with famous musicians including Sam Smith and Charli XCX attending local schools. Bishop’s Stortford has contributed its fair share to this Parliament, too. Upon election I became aware of at least four Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), who attended local schools in Bishop’s Stortford.

Stansted airport, the largest single site employer in the east of England, sits right on our doorstep, offering opportunities for work, skills training and lifelong learning to our residents in Bishop’s Stortford. The direct train line between the two means that our community is readily connected to the rest of the world.

For reasons of time I cannot go into detail on all the market towns in my constituency, but there are others, including Ware and Sawbridgeworth, of which we are deeply proud. But our towns are not without challenge, so I would be grateful if the Minister could, in her response, touch on the support that the Labour Government are providing for high streets in semi-rural communities and market towns to ensure that residents can readily access vital in-person services. Also, will she touch on the support that the Government are providing for live music venues such as the Corn Exchange in Hertford, of which our residents are deeply proud?

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I am grateful for the exemplary time discipline so far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate. Like him, I have the privilege of representing the historic market town of Dartford, where a great market still operates on Thursdays and Saturdays in the town centre.

Dartford and its surrounding villages have a proud cultural heritage, with the borough council running its own blue plaque scheme to celebrate historical events and figures from around the borough. This includes Dartford football club, with a plaque at the site of the original entrance to its Watling Street ground. It also includes the Rolling Stones. I am sure the music aficionados here know that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met as teenagers on platform 2 of Dartford’s railway station in 1961—a year before forming the band. The iconic duo is immortalised in the town, with a pair of statues unveiled in 2023.

Dartford football club is an integral part of the town’s cultural heritage, having been founded over 130 years ago by members of Dartford working men’s club. It currently sits proudly at the top of the Isthmian league. The club was saved by supporters in the early 1990s, and the team now play at the fantastic Princes Park on the edge of the town.

Another proud part of Dartford’s heritage is the Orchard theatre, which was built in the early 1980s and has hosted comedians, musicals and pantos ever since. Sadly, it is currently beset with RAAC in its roof and has been closed, with a temporary theatre created to hold performances in the interim. Additional work is needed on fire safety, and we look forward to the theatre being open again in 2026, which is sadly a year later than planned.

As others have stressed, pubs are an important part of our cultural heritage. Historical pubs are a key part of an area’s social infrastructure. In Dartford, the Royal Victoria and Bull pub on High Street is a leading example. The Lads of the Village pub in Stone was built in 1793 and has recently closed. The parish council has successfully campaigned to get the pub listed as an asset of community value, but despite the council offering the full asking price, the owner is refusing to negotiate, leaving the site in limbo with the parish powerless. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in the “English Devolution” White Paper to a strong new right to buy to maintain beloved assets. That cannot come soon enough.

I hope the Government will continue with their plans to revitalise our high streets and historic market towns, looking at how business rates can be reformed. Again, I welcome the commitment in the devolution White Paper to support high streets by strengthening business improvement districts. Let us all work together over this Parliament to ensure that our market towns can thrive.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

In the spirit of working together, I will call the Front Benchers at 10.28 am. There are still eight people who want to speak, so I am afraid speeches will have to be less than two minutes or someone will be disappointed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) for securing this important debate.

My constituency of Watford is a town with borough status in Hertfordshire. It is an historic market town, having been granted a charter in the 12th century, and the town grew as a result of the Grand Junction canal and railway expansion. The vibrancy and therefore, over time, the cultural heritage of Watford as a market town can excite, stimulate and trigger fond nostalgia. As a child, my friends and I would race around Watford market, which was at the time a place I would have understood to be brutalist in its architectural style—that has nothing to do with the skinheads who also frequented the area.

Sustained by an iced bun or doughnut as a special treat, we would explore, weaving between market stalls and diving into adjacent shops like WHSmith, with its records and computer department. That market in Watford no longer exists. Its site has become part of a more contemporary shopping experience—more Zara than zaniness. Tastes and fashions change, of course, but we adored it, and as I grew older and became familiar with markets in other towns and places—Amersham, Kensington market, the Birmingham Bullring—the memories of Watford and its market embedded themselves. That is important. The cultural heritage of market towns can easily be misrepresented as a narrow strand of admittedly delightful “traditional” market towns, but the fun and the cultural heritage of what Watford market once offered should be celebrated as part of that heritage, too. It attests to the validity of that period of history.

Watford market does still exist in a different location. Spilling out on to the high street, it offers food, shopping and other experiences for residents. In challenging times and circumstances, the new Watford market endeavours to deliver the experience of socialising of an evening, lunches for busy workers and shoppers, and new ways to create memories for people exploring and wandering through.

This Labour Government are determined to deliver growth and housing. Let us hope that, as part of their drive to stabilise the housing market, the plan for new towns will include markets, as we build our future and cultural heritage.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

If she can limit herself to one minute, I call Catherine Fookes.

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me, Sir Jeremy. In Monmouthshire, we are really lucky: we have not one, two or three but five market towns. I thought that would be a record, but it is not, because there is a constituency with 10. Our largest town is Abergavenny, which Members might be familiar with, and it is beautiful. It has an iconic town and market hall built in 1869, which is home to the market, the Borough theatre, the library and our world-famous Abergavenny food festival, which has been described as the Glastonbury of food festivals. The Beatles played there in 1963, which I think trumps all the other bands we have heard mention of today.

The Welsh Government have done really well in supporting our market towns and our culture. They have just announced an extra £4.4 million to support our arts and culture sectors. They have used the transforming towns grant to support our market towns, and the upcoming Budget commits to a £335 million package of non-domestic rates support for businesses, which will be hugely important for our businesses. I will close by asking the Minister to share how she will work with our Welsh Government colleagues to ensure that our market towns continue to flourish.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for their brevity. We now move to the Front Benchers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

10. What discussions he has had with the Electoral Commission on the arrangements for the publication of the first strategy and policy statement.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)]

The first and current strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission was published by the previous Government in February last year. The commission passed its report to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission this week, setting out how it has had regard to the statement as required by law. The commission will publish that report in due course.

[Joe Powell]

The Elections Act 2022 passed by the previous Government imposed a strategy and policy statement on the Electoral Commission, undermining its independence for some confected agenda about voter fraud, and eroding trust and confidence in the commission. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the best course of action would be not to publish a further strategy and policy statement until such a time as the legislation can be reviewed?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that is the commission’s view. He will know that the commission remains opposed to the principle of a strategy and policy statement, and views such a mechanism as inconsistent with its independent role.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is estimated that only 3% of the 3.5 million British citizens abroad participated in the last general election. What action can the Electoral Commission and my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that people who are eligible to vote can do so in future general elections?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that more can always be done to ensure that all those eligible for the franchise, which now includes a substantial number of overseas voters, understand what they are entitled to, and that we offer them all the assistance we can to participate in the process.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

10. What recent assessment the Commission has made of the adequacy of the rules on donations by non-UK citizens to political parties.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)]

When establishing the political finance regime, Parliament’s explicit intention was to ban foreign donations. However, limitations of the current law mean that it is possible for money from foreign sources to enter the UK electoral system through donations from UK companies. For that reason, the Electoral Commission has called for the laws around company donations to be strengthened, to ensure that parties cannot accept money from companies that have not made enough in the UK to fund their donation or loan, to impose a duty to carry out enhanced “know your donor” checks, and to improve transparency over donations made through unincorporated associations.

[Joe Powell]

In recent weeks we have seen the unedifying spectacle of opposition parties trying to curry favour with one particular foreign billionaire. However, this issue is much bigger than Elon Musk. Transparency International UK estimates that £1 in every £10 in our system—£150 million since 2021—comes from questionable or unknown sources. When will these proposals come forward, so that we can debate them in the House and tackle this threat to our democracy?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

As the hon. Member will understand, proposals to change the law must come from the Government—with whom, I gently suggest, he has more influence that I do—but he is right that transparency is crucial. It is important that we understand the source of the donations, so that the political parties that accept them can be properly held to account.

[Mr Carmichael]

Surely, even in these febrile times, it should not be difficult to build a consensus around the proposition that foreign money should not be in British politics. Can we not get the parties together now to make the strongest possible package of reforms, rather than reacting when it is too late?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

As I mentioned, there is a consensus in this House that foreign donations should not play a part in British politics, but there are gaps in the law. As I mentioned, the Electoral Commission believes that those gaps can be properly closed through further legislation. It is speaking to the Government about that, and I know that it would be happy discuss the matter further with the right hon. Gentleman, if he so wishes.

The hon. Member for Battersea, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Football Governance Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Lucy Frazer)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.

Football is part of our national life. Over the years, English football has become a universal language. Wherever you are, whatever country you are in, you are never far away from a fan of one of our great clubs. We are a global football powerhouse and our economy benefits: billions for the economy, investment in towns and cities across the country, and tens of thousands of jobs. Our premier league is world leading. And the strength of our national game goes far beyond the top tier. Hundreds of thousands of fans turn out every week and come together to support teams up and down the football pyramid. Football clubs are at the heart of our communities. Each and every Member will be able to testify to that. Each Member will also be able to testify to the fact that we have the best fans in the world.

Unfortunately, too many of those very same fans have been taken for granted. Too many fans have seen their team’s owners change club badges and colours without any fan input, or have seen their club sell its stadium and up sticks. Too many fans have watched on as their clubs tried to join closed-shop breakaway leagues against their wishes. And too many fans have seen their club struggle and even collapse under the weight of mismanagement and poor ownership. There have been 64 instances of clubs falling into administration since the Premier League was founded in 1992. Clearly, not all clubs are feeling the benefits of English football’s global success and something has to change.

We all want to see our national game prosper for generations to come, but if we want our clubs to thrive, fans have to be at their heart. If we want English football to remain a global success story, we have to ensure our pyramid is financially sustainable. I am proud to say that the Football Governance Bill will do exactly that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on bringing forward this Bill. As she says, football goes all the way down the football pyramid—not just in terms of its quality, but in terms of the entertainment it offers. Does she agree that a classic example of that is the fantastic entertainment that Coventry City provided in the FA cup semi-final on Sunday? Despite the club temporarily not being part of the premier league, it is none the less clear not just to the Coventry City supporters in my constituency but to everyone that the financial health of clubs that are further down the football pyramid matters for the entertainment they can provide. Does she agree?

Zoological Society of London (Leases) Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 28th February 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Julia Lopez]

That is a good question. I am going to speculate that it is because it is to do with the Royal Parks estate—[Interruption.] Everybody is nodding, so I am going to say that I am right on that one, but I will correct the record if it turns out that that is not the case.

The ZSL lease was most recently renewed for 60 years in 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said that that is simply not long enough, and I take that point. I should also put on the record that I would like to extend the lease of Sir David Attenborough—I hope he will be with us for many decades to come. Like any well-managed and forward-thinking organisation, ZSL wants to make sure it can be around into the future.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire asked whether 150 years is enough, but I want to ask whether ZSL is enough. It strikes me that other institutions benefiting from similar leases may come across the same problems—the length of investment period and so on. Has the Minister had the opportunity, given the responsibility she has now discovered she has, to look at similar leases to determine whether they might require the same treatment?

[Julia Lopez]

I confess that the same point struck me as I was looking at the Bill. Other organisations that come under the Crown Estate Act 1961 have had to go through this convoluted and seemingly unnecessary process. It might be simpler to change elements of the Act to encompass all the organisations affected by it, but I will take that away.

Establishing the mechanism for a longer-term lease will bring ZSL in line with other similar organisations, including the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew. This should be an uncontroversial change, but it appears that we have alighted on some controversy in dealing with this matter. We think the change will positively impact the organisation so that it can build its resilience, develop strategic relationships and increase the scope for potential commercial and philanthropic partnerships that will hopefully ensure its continued growth well into the future.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I will come on to that, because we have tabled a few amendments on digital verification and the accreditation of digital identity.

We are proposing a voluntary framework. We believe that using digital identity has many advantages, and those will become greater as the technology improves, but there is no compulsory or mandatory element to the use of digital identity. I understand why the hon. Lady raises that point, and I am happy to give her that assurance.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the specifics of the Government amendments, may I ask him about something they do not yet cover? The Bill does not address the availability of data to researchers so that they can assist in the process of, for example, identifying patterns in online safety. He will know that there was considerable discussion of this during the passage of the Online Safety Act 2023, when a succession of Ministers said that we might return to the subject in this Bill. Will he update the House on how that is going? When might we expect to see amendments to deal with this important area?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

It is true that we do not have Government amendments to that effect, but it is a central part of the Bill that we have already debated in Committee. Making data more available to researchers is, indeed, an objective of the Bill, and I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s view that it will produce great value. If he thinks more needs to be done in specific areas, I would be very happy to talk to him further or to respond in writing.

Online Safety Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) on what was one of the best speeches on this Bill—and we have heard quite a lot. It was excellent and very thoughtful. I will speak to a number of amendments. I will not cover the Labour amendments in any detail because, as ever, the Labour Front Benchers did an excellent job of that. The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) covered nicely the amendment on liability, and brought up the issue of hate, particularly when pointed towards the Jewish community. I thank her for consistently bringing that up. It is important to hear her voice and others on this issue.

Amendment 43 was tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) and it regards a default toggle for material that we all agree is unsafe or harmful. The Labour party has said that it agrees with the amendment, and the SNP believes that the safest option should be the default option. We should start from a point of view that if anybody wants to see eating disorder content, or racist or incredibly harmful content that does not meet the bar of illegality, they should have to opt in to receive it. They should not see it by default; they should have to make that choice to see such content.

Freedom of speech is written into the Bill. People can say whatever they want as long as it is below that bar of illegality, but we should not have to read it. We should not have to read abuse that is pointed toward minority groups. We should start from the position of having the safest option on. We are trying to improve the permissive approach that the Government have arrived at, and this simple change is not controversial. It would require users to flip a switch if they want to opt in to some of the worst and most dangerous content available online, including pro-suicide, pro-anorexia or pro-bulimia content, rather than leaving that switch on by default.

If the Government want the terms and conditions to be the place where things are excluded or included, I think platforms should have to say, “We are happy to have pro-bulimia or pro-anorexia content.” They should have to make that clear and explicit in their terms of service, rather than having to say, “We do not allow x, y and z.” They should have to be clear, up front and honest with people, because then people would know what they are signing up to when they sign up to a website.

Amendment 44 is on habit forming features, and we have not spoken enough about the habit forming nature of social media in particular. Sites such as TikTok, Instagram and Facebook are set up to encourage people to spend time on them. They make money by encouraging people to spend as much time on them as possible—that is the intention behind them. We know that 42% of respondents to a survey by YoungMinds reported displaying signs of addiction-like behaviour when questioned about their social media habits. Young people are worried about that, and they do not necessarily have the tools to avoid it. We therefore tabled amendment 44 to take that into account, and to require platforms to consider that important issue.

New clause 3, on child user empowerment, was mentioned earlier. There is a bizarre loophole in the Bill requiring user empowerment toggles for adults but not for children. It is really odd not to require them for children when we know that they will be able to see some of this content and access features that are much more inherently dangerous to them than to adults. That is why we tabled amendments on private messaging features and live streaming features.

Live streaming is a place where self-generated child sexual abuse has shot through the roof. With child user empowerment, children would have to opt in, and they would have empowerment tools to allow them opportunities to say, “No, I don’t want to be involved in live streaming,” or to allow their parents to say, “No, I don’t want my child to be able to do live streaming when they sign up to Instagram. I don’t want them able to share live photos and to speak to people they don’t know.” Amendment 46, on private messaging features, would allow children to say, “No, I don’t want to get any private messages from anyone I don’t know.” That is not written into terms of service or in the Bill as a potentially harmful thing, but children should be able to exclude themselves from having such conversations.

We have been talking about the relationship between real life and the online world. If a child is playing in a play park and some stranger comes up and talks to them, the child is perfectly within their rights to say, “No, I’m not speaking to strangers. My parents have told me that, and it is a good idea not to speak to strangers,” but they cannot do that in the online world. We are asking for that to be taken into account and for platforms to allow private messaging and live streaming features to be switched off for certain groups of people. If they were switched off for children under 13, that would make Roblox, for example, a far safer place than it currently is.

I turn to amendment 84, on conversion therapy. I am glad that the amendment was tabled and that there are moves by the UK Government to bring forward the conversion therapy ban. As far as I am aware—I have been in the Chamber all day—we have not yet seen that legislation, but I am told that it will be coming. I pay tribute to all those who have worked really hard to get us to the position where the Government have agreed to bring forward a Bill. They are to be commended on that. I am sorry that it has taken this long, but I am glad that we are in that position. The amendment was massively helpful in that.

Lastly, I turn to amendment 50, on the risk of harm. One of the biggest remaining issues with the Bill is about the categorisation of platforms, which is done on the basis of their size and the risk of their features. The size of the platform—the number of users on it—is the key thing, but that fails to take into account very small and incredibly harmful platforms. The amendment would give Ofcom the power to categorise platforms that are incredibly harmful—incel forums, for example, and Kiwi Farms, set up entirely to dox trans people and put their lives at risk—as category 1 platforms and require them to meet all the rules, risk assessments and things for those platforms.

We should be asking those platforms to answer for what they are doing, no matter how few members they have or how small their user base. One person being radicalised on such a platform is one person too many. Amendment 50 is not an extreme amendment saying that we should ban all those platforms, although we probably should. It would ask Ofcom to have a higher bar for them and require them to do more.

I cannot believe that we are here again and that the Bill has taken so long to get to this point. I agree that the Bill is far from perfect, but it is better than nothing. The SNP will therefore not be voting against its Third Reading, because it is marginally better than the situation that we have right now.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I want to say in passing that I support amendments 52 and 53, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and others. She will explain them fully so I do not need to, but they seem to be sensible clarifications that I hope the Government will consider favourably.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I thought I might mention to my right hon. and learned Friend that the written ministerial statement, which is now available to the public, makes it clear that useful and constructive discussions have taken place. Much of what he is saying is not necessarily applicable to the state of affairs we are now faced with.

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will come on to the written statement. I accept what he says. I think we are heading in the right direction, but since new clause 2 is before us at the moment, it seemed to me that I ought to address it, I hope in a helpful way.

There is nothing in the language of new clause 2 as it stands that requires a breach of the duties to be serious or even more than minimal. We should be more discriminating than that.

The second difficulty with new clause 2, which I hope the Government will pick up when they look at it again, is with prosecuting successfully the sorts of offences we may create. The more substantive and fundamental child safety duties in clause 11, which are to

“mitigate and manage the risks of harm”

and to prevent children encountering harmful content, are expressed in terms of the use of “proportionate measures” or “proportionate systems and processes”. The word “proportionate” is important and describes the need for balanced judgments to be made, including by taking into account freedom of expression and privacy as required by clause 11 itself. Aside from the challenges of obtaining evidence of what individual managers did or did not know, did or said, those balanced judgments could be very difficult for a prosecutor to assess and to demonstrate to a criminal court, to the required standard of proof, were deliberately or negligently wrong.

The consequences of that difficulty could either be that it becomes apparent that the cases are very hard to prosecute, and therefore criminal liability is not the deterrent we hoped for, or that wide criminal liability causes the sort of risk aversion and excessive take-down of material that I know worries my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and others who support new clause 2. We therefore need to calibrate criminal liability appropriately.

It is also worth saying that if we are to pursue an extension of criminal liability, I am not sure that I see the logic of limiting that further criminal liability only to breaches of the child safety duties; I can envisage some breaches of safety duties in relation to illegal content that may also be deserving of such liability.

That leads me on to consider, as has been said, exactly how we might extend criminal liability differently. I appreciate that the Government will now be doing just that. Perhaps they can consider doing so in relation to serious or persistent breaches of the safety duties, rather than in relation to all breaches of safety duties.

Alternatively, or additionally, they could look at individual criminal liability for a failure to comply with a confirmed notice of contravention from Ofcom. I welcome the direction of travel set out in the written ministerial statement, which suggests that that is where the Government may go. As the statement says, the recent Irish legislation that has been prayed in aid does something very similar, and it is an approach with several advantages: it is easier to prove, we will know whether Ofcom has issued a notice requiring action to remedy a deficient approach to the safety duties, and we will know whether Ofcom believes that it has not been responded to adequately.

As we design a new system of regulation in this new era of regulation, we should want open conversations to take place between the regulator and the regulated as to how best to counter harms. Anything that discourages platforms and their directors from doing so may make the system we are designing work less well in promoting safety online. The approach that I think the Government will now consider is unlikely to do that.

Let me say one final thing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, I have been involved in the progress of this Bill almost from the start, and I am delighted to see present my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), at whose instruction I started doing it. It has been tortuous progress, no doubt—to some extent that was inevitable because of the difficulty of the Bill and the territory in which we seek to legislate—but the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who speaks for the SNP and for whom I have a good deal of respect, was probably a little grudging in suggesting that as it stands the Bill does only slightly better than the status quo. It does a lot more than that.

If we send the Bill to the other place this evening, as I hope we do, and if the other place considers it again with some thoroughness and seeks to improve it further, as I know it will, we will make the internet not a safe place—I do not believe that is achievable—but a significantly safer place. If we can do that, it will be the most important thing that most of us in this place have ever done.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Channel 4

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We are laying a written ministerial statement today.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker. I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said. Is not the key point that Channel 4 operates in a distinctive niche in the broadcasting landscape, and everything we do should be designed to enhance that, not erode it? Is it not the case that what she has described today has the best chance of enhancing it, whereas privatisation would erode it?

[Michelle Donelan]

I came to the same conclusion as my predecessor that the long-term sustainability of Channel 4 was questionable. That is why we put in place a package, which is different from that of my predecessor but has the same goal in mind of ensuring that Channel 4 can survive, thrive and flourish in the future.

Online Safety Bill

Jeremy Wright Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th December 2022 Commons Chamber

As colleagues will be aware, the new clause will fix the frustrating gaps in Ofcom’s enforcement powers. As the Bill stands, it gives Ofcom the power to fine big tech companies only 10% of their turnover for compliance failures. It does not take a genius to recognise that that can be a drop in the ocean for some of the global multimillionaires and billionaires whose companies are often at the centre of the debate around online harm. That is why the new clause, which will mean individual directors, managers or other officers finally being held responsible for their compliance failures, is so important. When it comes to responsibilities over online safety, it is clear that the Bill needs to go further if the bosses in silicon valley are truly to sit up, take notice and make positive and meaningful changes.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that the fines would be a drop in the ocean. These are very substantial amounts of money. In relation to individual director liability, I completely understand where the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is coming from, and I support a great deal of what she says. However, there are difficulties with the amendment. Does the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) accept that it would be very odd to end up in a position in which the only individual director liability attached to information offences, meaning that, as long as an individual director was completely honest with Ofcom about their wrongdoing, they would attract no individual liability?

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have some form on this matter going back a number of years. The amendment is in the tradition that this House has followed of passing legislation to protect journalists, their sources and their material. I make this offer again to the Minister: the NUJ is happy to meet and discuss how the matter can be resolved effectively through the tabling of an amendment in the other place or discussions around codes of practice. However, I emphasise to the Minister that, as we have found previously, the stronger protection is through a measure in the Bill itself.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendments 1 to 9 and new clause 1 in my name and the names of other hon. and right hon. Members. They all relate to the process of categorisation of online services, particularly the designation of some user-to-user services as category 1 services. There is some significance in that designation. In the Bill as it stands, perhaps the greatest significance is that only category 1 services have to concern themselves with so-called “legal but harmful” content as far as adults are concerned. I recognise that the Government have advertised their intention to modify the Bill so that users are offered instead mechanisms by which they can insulate themselves from such content, but that requirement, too, would only apply to category 1 services. There are also other obligations to which only category 1 services are subject—to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content, and extra duties to assess the impact of their policies and safety measures on rights of freedom of expression and privacy.

Category 1 status matters. The Bill requires Ofcom to maintain a register of services that qualify as category 1 based on threshold criteria set out in regulations under schedule 11 of the Bill. As schedule 11 stands, the Secretary of State must make those regulations, specifying threshold conditions, which Ofcom must then apply to designate a service as category 1. That is based only on the number of users of the service and its functionalities, which are defined in clause 189.

Amendments 2 to 8 would replace the word “functionalities” with the word “characteristics”. This term is defined in amendment 1 to include not only functionalities —in other words what can be done on the platform—but other aspects of the service: its user base; its business model; governance and other systems and processes. Incidentally, that definition of the term “characteristics” is already in the Bill in clause 84 dealing with risk profiles, so it is a definition that the Government have used themselves.

Categorisation is about risk, so the amendments ask more of platforms and services where the greatest risk is concentrated; but the greatest risk will not always be concentrated in the functionality of an online service. For example, its user base and business model will also disclose a significant risk in some cases. I suggest that there should be broader criteria available to Ofcom to enable it to categorise. I also argue that the greatest risk is not always concentrated on the platforms with the most users. Amendment 9 would change schedule 11 from its current wording, which requires the meeting of both a scale and a functionality threshold for a service to be designated as category 1, to instead require only one or the other.

Very harmful content being located on smaller platforms is an issue that has been discussed many times in consideration of the Bill. That could arise organically or deliberately, with harmful content migrating to smaller platforms to escape more onerous regulatory requirements. Amendment 9 would resolve that problem by allowing Ofcom to designate a service as category 1 based on its size or on its functionalities—or, better yet, on its broader characteristics.

I do not want to take too many risks, but I think the Government have some sympathy with my position, based on the indicative amendments they have published for the further Committee stage they would like this Bill to have. I appreciate entirely that we are not discussing those amendments today, but I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will permit me to make some brief reference to them, as some of them are on exactly the same territory as my amendments here.

Some of those amendments that the Government have published would add the words “any other characteristics” to schedule 11 provisions on threshold conditions for categorisation, and define them in a very similar way to my amendment 1. They may ask whether that will answer my concerns, and the answer is, “Nearly.” I welcome the Government’s adding other characteristics to the consideration, not just of threshold criteria, but to the research Ofcom will carry out on how threshold conditions will be set in the first place, but I am afraid that they do not propose to change schedule 11, paragraph 1(4), which requires regulations made on threshold conditions to include,

“at least one specified condition about number of users and at least one specified condition about functionality.”

That means that to be category 1, a service must still be big.

I ask the Minister to consider again very carefully a way in which we can meet the genuine concern about high harm on small platforms. The amendment that he is likely to bring forward in Committee will not yet do so comprehensively. I also observe in passing that the reference the Government make in those amendments to any other characteristics are those that the Secretary of State considers relevant, not that Ofcom considers relevant—but that is perhaps a conversation for another day.

Secondly, I come on to the process of re-categorisation and new clause 1. It is broadly agreed in this debate that this is a fast-changing landscape; platforms can grow quickly, and the nature and scale of the content on them can change fast as well. If the Government are wedded to categorisation processes with an emphasis on scale, then the capacity to re-categorise a platform that is now category 2B but might become category 1 in the future will be very important.

That process is described in clause 83 of the Bill, but there are no timeframes or time limits for the re-categorisation process set out. We can surely anticipate that some category 2B platforms might be reluctant to take on the additional applications of category 1 status, and may not readily acquiesce in re-categorisation but instead dispute it, including through an appeal to the tribunal provided for in clause 139. That would mean that re-categorisation could take some time after Ofcom has decided to commence it and communicate it to the relevant service. New clause 1 is concerned with what happens in the meantime.

To be clear, I would not expect the powers that new clause 1 would create to be used often, but I can envisage circumstances where they would be beneficial. Let us imagine that the general election is under way—some of us will do that with more pleasure than others. Category 1 services have a particular obligation to protect content of democratic importance, including of course by applying their systems and processes for moderating content even-handedly across all shades of political opinion. There will not be a more important time for that obligation than during an election.

Let us assume also that a service subject to ongoing re-categorisation, because in Ofcom’s opinion it now has considerable reach, is not applying that even-handedness to the moderation of content or even to its removal. Formal re-categorisation and Ofcom powers to enforce a duty to protect democratic content could be months away, but the election will be over in weeks, and any failure to correct disinformation against a particular political viewpoint will be difficult or impossible to fully remedy by retrospective penalties at that point.

New clause 1 would give Ofcom injunction-style powers in such a scenario to act as if the platform is a category 1 service where that is,

“necessary to avoid or mitigate significant harm.”

It is analogous in some ways to the powers that the Government have already given to Ofcom to require a service to address a risk that it should have identified in its risk assessment but did not because that risk assessment was inadequate, and to do so before the revised risk assessment has been done.

Again, the Minister may say that there is an answer to that in a proposed Committee stage amendment to come, but I think the proposal that is being made is for a list of emerging category 1 services—those on a watchlist, as it were, as being borderline category 1—but that in itself will not speed up the re-categorisation process. It is the time that that process might take that gives rise to the potential problem that new clause 1 seeks to address.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the amendments in the spirit they are offered. He has probably heard me say before—though perhaps not, because he is new to this, although I do not think anyone else in the room is—that the right way to approach this groundbreaking, complex and difficult Bill is with a degree of humility. That is never an easy sell in this institution, but I none the less think that if we are prepared to approach this with humility, we will all accept, whether Front Bench or Back Bench, Opposition or Government, that we will not necessarily get everything right first time.

Therefore, these Report stages in this Bill of all Bills are particularly important to ensure that where we can offer positive improvements, we do so, and that the Government consider them in that spirit of positive improvement. We owe that to this process, but we also owe it to the families who have been present for part of this debate, who have lost far more than we can possibly imagine. We owe it to them to make sure that where we can make the Bill better, we make it better, but that we do not lose the forward momentum that I hope it will now have.

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

I approach my contribution from the perspective of the general principle, the thread that runs through all the amendments on the paper today on safety, reform of speech, illegal content and so on. That thread is how we deal with the harm landscape and the real-world impact of issues such as cyber-bullying, revenge porn, predatory grooming, self-harm or indeed suicide forums.

There is a serious risk to children and young people, particularly women and girls, on which there has been no debate allowed: the promulgation of gender ideology pushed by Mermaids and other so-called charities, which has created a toxic online environment that silences genuine professional concern, amplifies unquestioned affirmation and brands professional therapeutic concern, such as that of James Esses, a therapist and co-founder of Thoughtful Therapists, as transphobic. That approach, a non-therapeutic and affirmative model, has been promoted and fostered online.

The reality is that adolescent dysphoria is a completely normal thing. It can be a response to disruption from adverse childhood experiences or trauma, it can be a feature of autism or personality disorders or it can be a response to the persistence of misogynistic social attitudes. Dysphoria can present and manifest in many different ways, not just gender. If someone’s gender dysphoria persists even after therapeutic support, I am first in the queue to defend that person and ensure their wishes are respected and protected, but it is an absolute falsity to give young people information that suggests there is a quick-fix solution.

It is not normal to resolve dysphoria with irreversible so-called puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones, or with radical, irreversible, mutilating surgery. Gender ideology is being reinforced everywhere online and, indeed, in our public services and education system, but it is anything but progressive. It attempts to stuff dysphoric or gender non-conforming young people into antiquated, regressive boxes of what a woman is and what a man is, and it takes no account of the fact that it is fine to be a butch or feminine lesbian, a femboy or a boy next door, an old duffer like me, an elite gay sportsman or woman, or anything in between.