Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for all the help that he has given us over the recent period. In my constituency, tourism is a key marker for economic growth, jobs, wages and so forth. May I ask the Minister what has been done in co-operation and partnership with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment in particular, to ensure that we all benefit in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. I had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland this summer, and saw many tourist attractions there. We work very co-operatively with our colleagues in Northern Ireland, including, obviously, Members in this House, who I know talk passionately—as the hon. Gentleman does—about tourism and the value of tourism. Obviously, the tourism recovery plan has implications for the whole United Kingdom, although some elements are devolved, but we work closely with our Northern Ireland colleagues, and there is Northern Ireland representation on the Tourism Industry Council. They contribute significantly, and I hope that positive relationship continues.

Emergency Services Cenotaph: Westminster

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mike Penning]

The right hon. Lady has hit the nail completely on the head. What better opportunity do we have? By the way, this campaign started long before covid—I shall come on to say a bit about how a lovely man called Tom got it going and how we got to this stage—but covid has brought the country together in a way that we have not seen since the second world war. Even though there is an expense and red tape—can we cut through some of the red tape?—and people will baulk at the fact that it will probably cost just over £3 million to do, who cares? In the scheme of things, £3 million is such a small amount of money when it could give so much to the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bring this debate forward, and he and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for their perseverance in this task. I believe in and support this campaign because the right hon. Gentleman is right in what he is saying. This cenotaph will be for all the nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales together—to thank all the people for all they have done. I want the right hon. Gentleman to know that I fully support what he is about and endorse his comments and campaign.

[Sir Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman is a great Unionist. I believe in the Union of this country, and the centre of the Union is where we are today: Westminster and Whitehall. To me, that is so important.

We have already raised £180,000, which has come from public donations. This is unusual for me, Madam Deputy Speaker, because as you know I never read in the House: I am dyslexic, something I am very proud of, and there is nothing I can do about it, so I do not usually read. But there are certain things that I want to read today so that I do not get certain people’s titles wrong, which I invariably do, and do not miss anybody out. We have already raised £180,000 and we need just over £3 million, but we also need two things, which I will come back to at the end: a decision on where the cenotaph is going to be and a commitment from the Government to help us to fund it.

The 999 cenotaph will be the first national monument to the NHS and other emergency workers who have served and will serve in future—it will be not just to those who have fallen. This is crucial: it is not just for those who have lost their lives, been seriously injured or been attacked in the line of duty. It will be a thank you—somewhere loved ones can go and just think about what their loved one has committed to the country. Some will have lost loved ones and some will have been injured in the line of duty. For our country not to have a central memorial to them shames us a little bit.

The 999 cenotaph is supported by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge; the Prime Minister; the First Ministers of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales; and all the emergency services, including the fire service, the police, the coastguard and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Also, although I do not have them on my list, we have to be conscious that there are other volunteer emergency workers who are not part of the RNLI—when I became the Shipping Minister, I learned very quickly not to forget them, because safety inshore is very much done by them. The sculptor is the renowned Philip Jackson who created the Bomber Command memorial in Green Park and, closer to us, the Gandhi statue in Parliament Square. We could not have a greater person working on it. As I said, our preferred site is in Whitehall.

I have no idea what the Minister is going to say; we have not conferred. With my co-chair, I wrote a joint letter to the Prime Minister, so there is no doubt about what we are asking for. Hopefully, we might have a bit of good news. If we can get some movement on this, the monument should be finished by December 2022, in the year of Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. If we can do that, what a fantastic message that would send.

There will be six figures on the plinth, plus one other, which I will come back to in a second. It will be in Portland stone and it will be 21 feet high from the ground to the top of the memorial. It will send an enormous message about how much this country cares. The six figures will be: a police officer, a firefighter, a maritime volunteer, a nurse, a paramedic, and a member of the search and rescue volunteer team—plus a service dog. We must not forget that it is not just human beings who go out there. Very often, they go out there with service dogs, whether police dogs or mountain rescue dogs. The figure of a dog will be a spaniel. There was a bit of discussion about what type of dog it would be. We are great dog lovers in this country. I think the spaniel works best. Those of us who are in this Chamber on a regular basis before the House opens for business know that the spaniels are here protecting us. I cannot think of a better breed of dog to be there.

How did we get to this stage? Tom Scholes-Fogg, the gentleman I referred to earlier, has been a trustee since 2016. In 2001, his grandfather John was a police sergeant in Greater Manchester. He was months away from retirement when one of his officers, PC Alison Armitage, was tragically killed on duty. I think that sparked something in him. In my constituency, PC Frank Mason was shot by bank robbers outside a Barclays bank years ago. Every single year, we come back and pay tribute to him. That is a small memorial in a constituency, in the middle of a town centre. I want one out here for the likes of Frank as well. Tom discovered, which surprised him, that there was no national memorial. When I first looked at this issue, I thought, “Of course we have one.” But actually, we do not. From one tragedy that happened to Alison, through Tom’s grandfather John and through Tom’s commitment, with his trustees—we have done all the directors and all the red tape; the Charity Commission is very happy—we have got to this stage.

We have some interesting quotes:

“As a society, we owe our wellbeing, and indeed our lives, to the men and women in our emergency services who work tirelessly to protect us in some of the most difficult circumstances. It is only fitting that we should recognise the vital role that they play and pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their communities.”

That was said by His Royal Highness Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge. I have another quote:

“It takes a very special kind of person to put your life on the line for a complete stranger.”

That is from a long quote from the Prime Minister. He is fully committed to this:

“I know the dedicated men and women of the Emergency services did not get into this line of work for the accolades or applause.”

They do so because they want to do it. He said:

“You are the heroes of British life”.

He fully supports what we are calling for. I could go on. There was support from the First Minister of Northern Ireland at the time. The leader of the Democratic Unionist party in Northern Ireland, one of our parliamentarians, supports this. Nicola Sturgeon supports it. I could go on.

Basically, I am saying to the Minister that we have a commitment from all the powers in this country. It cannot be much greater than the future King of this country, the Prime Minister of this country and the leaders of all parts of this country. We also have, I can assure her, fantastic support from both sides of the House.

In the great scheme of things, this is a small amount of money. The least worst thing we would like is to be exempt from VAT for this project. The next best thing might be that the Treasury would match-fund us. Actually, what I would like, to show the commitment to our emergency workers and our service animals, is for the Government to say, “We’re going to help you find a spot, with Westminster City Council, in Whitehall, and by the way we’re going to pay for it.” I cannot think of a better way to spend the British pound than to do that.

Review of the Gambling Act 2005

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Scott Benton]

The right hon. Member makes a brilliant point. It is not just about the jobs, directly and indirectly, and the taxation to the Exchequer; it is also about the contribution of the industry to the cultural fabric of our society. I appreciate that point and will refer to it later.

The industry’s contribution to the national economy and local economies such as mine in Blackpool must be taken into account during the upcoming gambling review, which provides a golden opportunity to upgrade much of the legislation in an area that is increasingly becoming analogue in a digital age.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There have been concerns that the Gambling Act is not fit for the digital age, as the hon. Member is saying. Does he agree that there is an issue with offshore gambling organisations, which are not illegal, and that a review of this legislation should look at the loopholes that prevent control of offshore gambling, which is equally dangerous to gamblers who have addictions?

[Scott Benton]

The hon. Member makes a valid point about the so-called black market or offshore gambling. Billions of pounds of UK customers’ money is spent on black market websites every single year. Of course, the problem is that, unlike UK online gaming operators, those offshore operators are not regulated and the propensity for online harm for people who have a problem is much higher. I thank him for raising that important point.

The key decisions in this review need to be taken by Ministers and Parliament. It is vital that the Government hear the views of both the industry and those who have concerns about problem gambling. I stress that the review has to be grounded in the evidence rather than blind ideology. We must not lose sight of the enjoyment that millions of people get from gambling, with recent polling suggesting that seven in 10 people in the UK gamble every single year and that 73% of people see betting as a leisure activity. This approach cannot be compromised by what some perceive to be the perspective advocated by the Gambling Commission.

Questions have to be asked about whether the Gambling Commission has extended its role beyond that expected of a regulator. Over the years, it has been said that the commission has taken a stance similar to the personal feelings of its chief executive at any particular time. Although the commission is there to support businesses and enable them to operate within the guidelines, it has on occasion unnecessarily made negative comments, been overly critical of the industry as a whole and faced criticism for being obstructive to firms trying to engage with it.

There is a real risk that over-regulation and intrusive precautions could push people towards the black market. Indeed, a PwC study has estimated that the size of the active black market in the UK has doubled in the last couple of years, and over 400,000 customers were predicted to have used an unlicensed operator in the past year, with an estimated spend of around £2.8 billion. The existence and potential growth of the black market poses a significant threat in terms of lost tax revenue, lost jobs, limited player protections and fewer money laundering protections.

When appraising the opportunities for necessary changes in regulation, we must take proportionate steps to continue to protect the small number of people who do have problems with gambling. The estimated rate of those with a gambling problem is around 0.5% of the adult population and has been stable for the past 20 years—a very small number in comparison with rates reported in other nations around the world, which is testament to the safeguards already put in place by the sector here in the UK. However, we must ensure that the necessary support is offered to those people. Those I have spoken to in the industry have acknowledged the need for such protections and appreciate the importance of protecting problem gamblers and young people. Over the last couple of years, the industry has voluntarily taken steps to increase safeguards for vulnerable people, including increasing funding for GambleAware, reducing TV advertising and educating children on the risks of gambling, as well as investing heavily in technologies that better identify and interact with customers who might start to have problems.

Above what the industry has voluntarily committed for funding for research, education and treatment for problem gambling, a blanket levy across the industry has been mooted. The evidence would suggest that this is simply not necessary. The Gambling Commission’s report reviewing the research, education and treatment arrangements states that a plausible sum for annual requirements would be in the range of £21 million to £67 million. I understand that, in 2019, the largest members of the Betting and Gaming Council agreed to increase funding for RET by up to £100 million over the next four years and committed to giving 1% of gross gambling yield to RET by 2023, bringing the total funding within that required range. A blanket levy would therefore be unnecessary and not be of any additional benefit to consumers. It is worth bearing in mind that these funds are already given voluntarily by the industry over and above the billions of pounds paid in taxes and duties to the Exchequer.

I understand that the Gambling Commission is looking into a system that aims to restrict a customer’s gambling spend to a limit based on a person’s discretionary income —known as affordability—to try to protect gamblers. Inherently, without an incredibly invasive and cross-industry system in place, this is a deeply flawed concept. All it would require to circumnavigate the limit would be for the player to open an account with another operator. Without the individual’s spend with all operators being tracked, their affordability limit would thus instantly be doubled. Most regular gamblers already have multiple accounts. Instead, this would create an off-putting and burdensome process for customers who wish to place a few bets simply for fun. There is no evidence to suggest that this reduces problem gambling, only that it reduces gambling overall. It is also morally questionable—where would all this end? Should we place affordability criteria on other areas of peoples’ lives, perhaps limiting spending on fast food, alcohol or anything else that people deem to be potentially addictive?

Further questions would also need answering if this were to be implemented. It would be near impossible to ask all the land-based gambling sector, including betting shops and casinos, to manage this directive. Would they even fall under the same regulations imposed on online operators? If not, that clearly creates an unlevel playing field for businesses while undermining the whole affordability strategy. How would all this actually work in practice?

Understandably, the whole industry, from bingo operators to casinos to sports betting companies, believes this to be an ill-conceived, blunt instrument that targets all gamblers. Its only real consequence is to reduce gambling overall, rather than focusing on protecting those vulnerable people with a genuine gambling problem. It is right that operators intervene where harms are identified, and support must always be made available, but this completely ignores the demand for gambling and, if we are not careful, will turn people instead to the black market if they are asked to provide intrusive documentation such as pay slips.

Flutter, a leading operator in the industry, has developed its own “affordability triple step”, three layers of protection as part of a flexible risk-based approach, while Entain has developed the ARC—advanced responsibility and care—platform, which uses cutting-edge behavioural science to spot whenever someone’s play becomes problematic, so that an intervention can immediately take place. Such schemes are just a couple of examples of the industry proactively taking steps to protect customers without the need for an over-reactive and invasive approach that targets all customers. Market research suggests that 40% of customers would not comply with affordability checks, and three quarters of them would look to evade restrictions by opening other accounts, playing in various physical locations and turning to unregulated online gambling sites, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Also of concern, for many of the same reasons, is the so-called single view of the customer, a proposal for a national database that will contain the betting information of every single gambler, as well as any personal information on their betting behaviour and information gathered about their financial position. The industry has been looking at more appropriate options whereby it shares information about those who are most at risk and have been flagged as having problems. It is far less intrusive to focus on those who need support rather than on every single person who likes a bet. Although the legal case is uncertain under general data protection regulation legislation, the Gambling Commission is looking to implement the proposal unilaterally. As previously mentioned, such policy proposals must be considered only within the context of the Gambling Act review.

Advertising and sponsorship provide valuable support for sports throughout this country. Betting sponsorship of sports such as horse racing, football, rugby league, darts, and snooker amounts to more than £70 million per year. Many clubs in the English football league are adamant that they could not survive without the income that they gain from gambling operators, which would not easily be replaced.

Importantly, advertising plays a role in keeping consumers safe, allowing operators to distinguish their offers from unregulated websites and communicating safer gambling messages to drive awareness and usage. Sky Bet’s Three Simple Tools campaign resulted in a 69% increase in the use of cool-off periods; a 10% rise in customers setting deposit limits; and 83% of Sky Bet customers using the profit-and-loss tool. There is little evidence to suggest that gambling advertising leads to problem gambling. In any case, the industry has voluntarily introduced a whistle-to-whistle advertising ban during live sport; support for safer gambling campaigns; and the newly released code on Adtech to minimise under-25-year-olds’ exposure to gambling advertising. The cumulative effect of these measures should be considered when we look to place any further restrictions on this already tightly regulated area.

Although the number of reported issues is incredibly small, when problems arise the Gambling Commission does not deal with individual complaints from consumers. That helps to build a case for an independent consumer-redress system, such as an ombudsman, for regulatory complaints. That would improve the process and make it more consistent for those who raise concerns.

Finally, with regard to the main commercial operators in the gambling industry, there are several needs for land-based casinos in the gambling review, but I do not want to give my right hon. Friend the Minister a sense of déjà vu, so I shall just reiterate my thanks to him for his thoughtful and engaging response to the recent Westminster Hall debate on some of the asks from the sector, the review of a super-casino and the opportunities that one could bring to a town such as Blackpool.

Quite distinct from the industry’s commercial operators sits the successful charity lottery sector. Charity lotteries exist purely to generate funds for good causes across Britain, with advertising fundamental to their ability to deliver this funding. It is vital that Ministers recognise, as the gambling review progresses, the distinct contribution of charity lotteries and the positive role that advertising plays in helping them to support good causes. In Blackpool, for example, the People’s Postcode Lottery has funded small grants totalling over £100,000, supporting local organisations such as Donna’s Dream House and the Blackpool football club community trust. Given that lotteries are widely seen as being low-risk for any problem gambling, changes to policy must allow them to thrive so that they can continue to do more for the good causes they support throughout this country.

In conclusion, I welcome the Minister’s further engagement with this important review, and I look forward to his response to many of the key issues alluded to in this speech, both in this debate and before the review finally comes back to Parliament in the autumn.

To finish on a political note, my constituency and many more like it with significant working-class communities were hard-won by supporters of this Government. Betting, and the sports that depend on betting, are part of our national culture. What is more, many of these people are sick and tired of being told what they can and cannot do, so the Government must tread very carefully here. Completing the review will not be an easy task. I am fully aware that the Minister will have to weigh up competing viewpoints, but I hope he can progress with a rational and evidence-based assessment that takes into account the need to protect the small number of people who have a gambling problem with the huge economic and cultural benefits that the industry has across the UK. The voters will not thank us if we get the balance wrong.

Channel 4: Privatisation

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this matter. I thank the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) for leading this debate on the privatisation of Channel 4.

Channel 4 has been around for many years and has provided many years of entertainment to the British public. It was introduced in 1982 under Thatcher’s Government, and was set to lead as the second largest commercial broadcaster in the UK. It followed ITV, after its birth in ’54.

Television and visual entertainment have proven incredibly necessary throughout the covid-19 pandemic. They have become a much-valued tool for many people, and we were most definitely thankful for them during lockdown.

Recent statistics show that 16% to 17% of Channel 4 viewers are aged 16 to 34, showing that there is a keen interest in Channel 4 shows, particularly among the younger generation. Interestingly, recent figures show that the quarterly reach of Channel 4 television in the United Kingdom is now some 51.1 million viewers, highlighting that there is still a call for the channel itself.

In recent years, large television broadcasters have proven dominant in the TV industry. Others have referred to Netflix, iPlayer, BritBox and so on. As a traditionalist, I usually watch the channels in front of me. I just about control the handset for switching channels. Fewer people are watching channels such as the BBC and Channel 4. I wonder why that is. We all watch television programmes that we are interested in. I have to admit that there are few programmes that I would be inclined to watch on Channel 4, and in all honesty there are certain things that I take exception to, but I do watch it for the films and the news, because they are both good. It provides an opportunity to follow those.

However, I would like to praise Channel 4 for the work it does with Stand Up to Cancer and charity TV programmes. There are many things that it should be commended for—not forgetting, of course, “The Great British Bake Off”, which is a household favourite, not because I can cook or bake but because I like to watch those who can.

I would not be against the privatisation of any channel if it meant that there were programmes available to cover interests for a range of people, regardless of age or political beliefs. Some of my constituents have been in touch with me ahead of this debate and have expressed the same concern: that there is simply not much that they would choose to watch. We have to have a channel that gives variety and opportunity, and that people are inclined to watch.

One brilliant factor is that Channel 4 runs solely on commercial, self-organised funds. An issue that has come to light, perhaps for older members of the public, is the payment to have no advertisements for Channel 4 on-demand. Many will inquire whether those fees would still be incurred after privatisation, so any change could well mean a change in the cost for those who view the programmes they wish to watch on Channel 4. On the other hand, many would argue that Channel 4 could become a for-profit company, with the programme quality drastically decreasing. That is a concern that I have and that others have also expressed. We also have to consider whether the producers of programmes would be comfortable airing their shows via private means.

I thank Channel 4 for all the entertainment that it has provided for us. It should be credited for offering a free channel that we in the UK are able to take advantage of to watch the programmes that we desire to watch. However, I also feel that, if a service is national and available to all, its content should also be suited to all. That is something that I would like to see. When it can be argued that some of the programmes are inaccessible for some sections of the community, a call for reform or change is required.

There is certainly scope for the channel to remain. The figures show that Channel 4’s share of viewing among black and minority ethnic audiences has grown by 3% over 2020, which is good news, and that its 16-34 linear viewing share in all time has grown by 9% on 2019—more than any other terrestrial channel. However, when this does not cover the national population, there are suggestions that privatisation could improve viewing demographics. I urge the Government to keep that in mind and put our constituents’ views at the forefront of decision making.

Randolph Turpin

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this significant debate. It may seem that to talk about Randolph Turpin is to talk about a parochial sporting hero, but I hope to demonstrate just how much he helped to transform British sport.

Seventy years ago this week, Randolph Turpin took the world of boxing by storm as more than 18,000 spectators packed into Earls Court in London to witness the great—the legendary—Sugar Ray Robinson end his European tour. The scene was set for Turpin to show the world what he was made of. After a pummelling 15 rounds, Turpin triumphed. He was the world middleweight champion—the first British fighter to hold the title since Bob Fitzsimmons some 60 years earlier in 1891, and the first ever black British boxer do so.

More colloquially known as the Leamington Licker—a title that many in the constituency are proud to recall—the local Leamington lad shot to international fame overnight. But Turpin’s 1951 victory was not just a flash-in-the-pan event; his entire career was based on breaking records. He was the first and only man ever to win both the junior and senior British amateur boxing titles in one year, and his record stretched to a stunning 66 wins out of 75 fights. For some of that time, he boxed while serving in the Royal Navy at the end of the second world war.

Our knowledge of his achievements and their recognition owes much to the work of the Randolph Turpin Trust. I pay special thanks to its chair, Adrian Bush, whose dedicated work helped to lead to the erection of the statue of Randy that stands proudly in Warwick town centre. It took five long years to raise the money for the statue, and I commend the trust members for their perseverance. It was they who organised for proper recognition by those who understood his true achievement.

The fact that the statue was unveiled by some of boxing’s greats—including Our ’Enry, the late, great Sir Henry Cooper—and attended by Earnie Shavers, Richie Woodhall, Alan Minter, Neil Simpson and Danny McAlinden, tells us everything we need to know about Randy Turpin, a sporting legend among sporting legends. It is the only statue that stands in the centre of Warwick, which is why I believe this Chamber is a fitting place to remind ourselves of and recognise and continue to remember Randy’s legacy on the 70th anniversary of that momentous fight. I do not believe this country has fully appreciated what he or his brother achieved.

Behind every great sportsman is, of course, a dedicated, loving and supportive family, and Randy’s was no exception. Born in Leamington Spa in 1928, Randy was the youngest of five siblings. He was the son of Lionel Turpin, who came to these shores from what was then British Guiana to fight in the first world war.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this debate to the House. Whenever anybody mentions the Somme, I am always reminded that it is a very special place for us in Northern Ireland. To know that Randy’s father fought at the Somme tells us a lot about the person he was and the person his father was as well. I want to say how pleased we are that the hon. Gentleman has brought this debate to the House to recognise not just Randy’s sporting heroics but the bravery of his dad at the Somme.

[Matt Western]

Lionel was indeed courageous fighting in the battle of the Somme, but sadly he died some years later having sustained permanent damage to his lungs. Together with hundreds of others, he had been the victim of a gas attack. As is so often the case, his sacrifice is barely recognised, together with those of so many other nationals who served the British empire.

It was left to Randy’s mother Beatrice to raise him and his four siblings, taking on part-time domestic work to provide for them. Beatrice was the daughter of a former bare- knuckle fighter and was by all accounts a feisty woman who would tell her children to stand up for themselves when they were subjected to racial abuse.

Sporting success in the Turpin family did not stop at Randy; indeed, his elder brother Dick Turpin, the first black British and Commonwealth middleweight champion in 1948, paved the way for black Britons throughout the country to compete on the same stage as white Britons for the first time. If we accept that Randy and Dick broke the colour bar in the boxing arena—as it was described at that time—the current success of British boxing owes a lot to their work.

When I talk of the successes of British boxing, I only need to mention Anthony Joshua, Chris Eubank, Lennox Lewis and others. None of those great athletes would have had the chance to reach the heights they did were it not for Dick and Randy Turpin breaking through the glass ceiling of race.

UK Casino Industry

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK casino industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Before I begin, I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

People’s perceptions of casinos often fall into two categories, either James Bond at the Monte Carlo Casino or problem gamblers chasing their next win. For 99% of people, however, that is simply not the reality. Casino goers are just ordinary people enjoying time out with family and friends. They have budgeted an acceptable cost for an evening’s entertainment, which is no different from purchasing an admission ticket to the theatre or attending the football on a Saturday afternoon.

Casinos bring many benefits to local communities. In Great Britain, 13,000 people are directly employed in casinos, with thousands more additional jobs generated in their supply chains. More than half of those working in the gambling industry are under the age of 35, a far higher proportion than in the wider economy, demonstrating the importance of the industry in providing entry-level jobs for young people looking for experience in the workplace.

Hundreds of people in Blackpool are directly employed in the three casinos across the town, as croupiers, waiters, security and chefs. Casinos offer long-term, year-round employment in my constituency, in what is otherwise a tourism-focused and therefore seasonal local economy.

Casinos also make a substantial contribution to the Treasury. In the financial year 2019-20, 128 casinos were operating in this country, paying a total of £213 million in gaming duty. Their contribution to the national economy and the job opportunities created in many towns, therefore, must be taken into account in the upcoming review of the Gambling Act 2005. The review has to be established on the evidence, not on preconceived ideas and ideology.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman may give me the answer that I wish to hear, and I hope that the Minister will endorse it when he responds. I have a real problem with some people in my constituency who are worried about gambling addiction. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that for casinos overall—I know we do not have them in Northern Ireland—there will be protection for those with a gambling addiction? If they enter a casino, will that protection be in place, with the help they need to prevent them spending the money they should not be spending? I am very concerned about people with gambling addictions and need that reassurance.

[Scott Benton]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid contribution. I am sure that many people across the country share such concerns. I have visited a number of casinos, including the ones in my constituency, and I can honestly say that the safe gambling practices they have in place are second to none. I am sure that the Minister will address that point further in his remarks.

The gambling review needs to allow for the casino sector to implement much-needed modernisation and allow the industry to provide the services and experiences that its customers desire. Thankfully, I know that the Government’s objective is to ensure that the legislation is fit for the modern day, while of course committing to player protection and safer gambling measures, to which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just alluded.

Legislation for casinos should have been updated in the 2005 Act. That in effect introduced an experiment for the sector: it legalised two new types of casinos, eight large and eight small, in predetermined areas. However, the truth is that that experiment has stalled. Fewer than half the 16 permitted casinos are now open but, crucially, an evaluation of the changes introduced by the 2005 Act has not occurred, meaning that there has been no consideration whatever of how the vast majority of other casinos, still governed by the 1968 legislation, would be modernised. Now is the time to do exactly that.

The outdated rules are exemplified by the number of gaming machines allowed in casinos. The 2005 Act allowed a maximum of 80 gaming machines on the premises of the small licence category casinos and 150 for the large licence category casinos, but the rest are limited to just 20 machines, regardless of their size. Most casinos across the world have thousands of machines. Let us take, for example, Belgium and Denmark, which have up to 140 times as many gaming machines per customer compared with casinos in Great Britain.

Events Research Programme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend, who has a lot of credibility and experience in this area, makes absolutely the right points. Even when we can open, there will be a need to build confidence in the public arena, and some of these sectors have been hit so hard that it will take several years for them to recover. We will be continuing to support them through the next phase of the CRF and other support measures. We will publish guidance along with the report that will also help these sectors to open up.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his responses so far. Does he agree that mixed messages are being sent about safety outdoors, with schools still making parents and children carry on wearing masks, yet they can walk from school to the playground without a mask? Will he undertake to clarify the requirements for outdoor activities as a whole and not be limited to the pilot schemes for large-scale events so that all Government Departments can send the same message across all Departments and all regions, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly? All information can then be shared equally, and there can be the same policy across all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I would not want to step into some of the devolved issues or indeed some of the concerns being expressed. However, to be fair, most of the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Government, are setting clear guidance about when facemasks are required. The events research programme has been trialling events without social distancing and without facemasks precisely to look at where we can open up further, which I think is the point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.

Covid-19 and Loneliness

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship all day, Sir Edward. It does not bother me, and I do not think it will bother other Members here either. We are very pleased to be here. Thank you for that and for calling me.

First, I especially thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for bringing this debate today. When I saw the topic in the Westminster Hall diary, I was keen to come down, first, to support her, but also to tell the public a story, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) also did about one of his friends.

The contributions from right hon. and hon. Members have been incredible. I doubt whether any family across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have not had some personal story to tell, as the hon. Gentleman referred to. I have been incredibly impressed by the speeches. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) referred to the “city to be”. I refer to it as a “city already”. I think we all know it as that; we are just waiting for it to be said officially—that is all.

The hon. Gentleman referred to how some people can be lonely in a crowded room. That is true. I know people who are like that. I know people who were the life and joy of a party and when the party was over, they were the loneliest people in the world. We cannot always tell a book by its cover or a person by the persona we see. That story resonates with me when I think about the people I have known over the years who fit into that specific category.

I have listened to so many difficult stories during this covid pandemic. I have seen at first hand the devastating effect that social distancing has had on the most vulnerable people. I lost my mother-in-law, Jemima, to covid in October last year. Her husband, Robert, my father-in-law, is a very private man and obviously found it devastating, personally, as did the rest of the family. But he had to grieve in isolation, because he was self-isolating when Jemima went into the hospital on the Monday and she then died on the Friday. My sister-in-law, my wife’s sister, was also in the intensive care unit with covid, so we could not even have the funeral until everyone was out of covid-19 isolation. For my boys to have had to contact Robert through a window was not the way it should have been. To say that he is a changed man vastly under-states what has happened.

Who will forget Her Majesty when Prince Philip passed away? Who did not resonate with Her Majesty as she sat in solitude, removed from those who loved her at the funeral service of her husband of 73 years? That was a dreadful scene, but one replicated in too many churches and too many funeral parlours throughout the land.

I think there is some encouragement; it is always good to have encouragement. The book by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, “Hold Still”, struck and stirred a chord in so many of us, as we understand that our pain is shared by so many.

During the lockdowns, my wife and I became grandparents—twice. However, we have not seen one of those grandchildren. Wee Max was born last October; Freya’s birthday will be Monday coming, but we will have a birthday party on 20 June. That will be an occasion when all 13 of us can come together. I should say, by the way, that the hon. Member for Southend West’s time as a grandparent is coming. I was saying one day to my wife, “We started as two, with three sons. Three sons got three wives—and now we have five grandchildren.” That is how the two became 13. Maybe the hon. Gentleman will end up with as many as that—I do not know. It is wonderful that we can come together after 15 months and have some joy. We understand that there are so many other people who have lived through this situation, as well.

The rules were in place for a reason—they were, and they are. They saved lives. We have adhered to the rules the whole way through because, first of all, we have to set an example, but also because I believe is right to do so. If the rules are set, let us adhere to them.

Our mental health as a nation is low—indeed, a lot lower than it ever has been in most of our memories. I live on a farm, so I am very fortunate. I go for a walk every night that I am home and I must say that I found comfort at home—not just with my wife, but because whenever I went for a walk I took my dog. The good thing about a dog is that it will always wag its tail. It will always be a friend, unlike a cat, which makes up its mind about whether it will be someone’s friend or not. That is how cats are. The point I am making here is this: if I had not had that opportunity to go for a walk, I think it would have been a very difficult time for me.

I commend all the charities, in particular the Red Cross in Northern Ireland, which conducted a poll that found that almost half the people in Northern Ireland—some 47%—said it was hard to talk about their problems when so many people are having a difficult time due to covid-19. Worryingly, more than two in five—some 41%—said that they would not be confident about knowing where to go for mental health or emotional support if they needed it. We need to consider how we can help those people and support them. That is what the hon. Member for Blaydon and others have said.

In Northern Ireland, the Red Cross is calling for the Northern Ireland Assembly to tackle loneliness and social isolation, advocating early action in the covid-19 recovery plans and a mental health strategy, while committing to develop and implement a cross-departmental Northern Ireland loneliness strategy. I think that is really what we need. Mental health issues have become so strong and so disjointed that we really need to have a loneliness strategy in place. I believe this approach must be funded UK-wide, to rebuild not simply our economy but, just as importantly, our people and our communities.

I also believe that we need to encourage the safe meeting of mother and toddler groups; how important that is, to get normality and for mothers to interact with mothers, and children with children. Children will always play together, because that is what children do, but mothers also need verbal communication and physical contact. Our nature is not to be on our own. I suppose that is the reason why we are all married; I presume that we are all married, or are about to be, or whatever the case may be. We need company; it is very important.

There are also the afternoon tea dances that we held in our neck of the woods, in Strangford in the Orange Halls, or the face-to-face parent-teacher meetings. We used to look almost with fear at the parent-teacher meetings, but now people would just love to have one; it would be great just to have that interaction.

We need to rebuild the notion that we are not alone and that together we are stronger. I join all my colleagues who have already spoken and those who will speak after me in asking the Government to do more to acknowledge the problem and to begin to allow the solution: a renewed sense of family, and of a community standing together, with a real connection, to help as and when needed. That is what we all do every day as elected Members of Parliament and as elected representatives. We do it because our people have chosen us. They often do that because it is our character and personality to help others.

I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place; I always genuinely look forward to her contributions. I know that she has empathy with all of us in the stories that we tell because she has been through those stories as well. I am also looking forward to hearing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I did not know that she was back until today and I have seen her sitting there. It is a pleasure to see her in place because I have not seen her physically for a while—it must be six or seven months, I am sure. I very much look forward to listening to her. I am sorry, I have meandered on for a while, but I just wanted to make those comments.

Football Governance

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 583310 and 584632, relating to football governance.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott, for this hugely important debate, and it is great to see so many Members in attendance and on the call list, even more so after a thumping 1-0 victory for England against Croatia. I am sure that Members from Wales and Scotland may not be feeling as perky, but obviously I look forward to the big game on Friday, when I expect England to give Scotland a sound thumping.

In this place, we often split along party lines in our debates, but I am confident that there will be an unusual level of consensus here today, because I think we all recognise the vital role that football plays in the communities that we have the privilege to represent. Before I get started properly, I must thank all those who took the time to share their views with me before this debate. I heard a wide range of opinions on this issue, but across the board—from club owners and ex-players to the fans who are the lifeblood of the game—it is fair to say that there is now widespread acceptance that change is needed.

I also thank Our Beautiful Game, the campaign group that includes senior figures from the game, such as David Bernstein, a former Football Association chairman, and Gary Neville, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who really got this debate rolling with her private Member’s Bill earlier this year. I thank Our Beautiful Game for lending its time and expertise to help me to prepare for today. I will give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is leading the fan-led review of football for the Minister’s Department. I thank her for that and for the time that she has shared with me.

The recent debacle of the European super league, which for football was the equivalent of the 2008 banking crisis, shocked everyone involved in the game. It showed why there is a real need to shake things up. Let us be clear: had the so-called big six succeeded with their breakaway attempt, football as we know it in our country would have died. Our premier league, the most watched and indeed the best league in the world, would have been split apart, and the pyramid of English football would have crumbled.

It was quite right that the ESL was met with disgust and ridicule across the board, and I am very pleased that for now it has been seen off. However, we know that football is now big business and the ESL is not the only reason why change is needed. Fans already had long-standing concerns.

There have been many examples of the identity of football clubs, which are essential to the identity of so many communities, being changed, with fans unable to resist that change. A couple of glaring examples spring to mind: the relocation of Wimbledon from is traditional home in London to Milton Keynes; and the decision by the owner of Cardiff City to change the club’s colours from the traditional blue to red.

Inappropriate owners may come in and run clubs in an unsustainable way, with devastating impacts on their local communities. Two examples of this came recently, with the sad demise of Bury in August 2019 and Wigan entering administration in July 2020. Unless we change the way football is run and ensure that clubs are treated not only as businesses but as community assets and heritage brands, these events will be repeated.

That brings me on to the first of our petitions, on the 50+1 model, submitted by Angus Yule. Angus launched the petition because he feels that this model of ownership would ensure that the decisions of our clubs fall into the hands of a collective of people who care about the good of the game, instead of just one owner. In Angus’s opinion, elite clubs especially are now run as businesses, with profit appearing to come before anything else and with fans’ loyalty exploited through expensive tickets and merchandise.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been a supporter of Leicester City since I was a wee boy of 16 years old—52 years. I say that because it does not have to be a big team for people to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that fans care about the nature of the team? They care about more than the price of a ticket. They care about the integrity and history of their club. They care about team pride. That is what it is all about, and that is what fans want. They do not want a super league; they just want to support their club.

[Jonathan Gullis]

In advance of the debate, I spoke to members of the Foxes Trust, who were very complimentary about the dialogue they have with Leicester City’s owners. I know the hon. Gentleman was buzzing from Leicester City’s recent FA cup victory, and I am sure he will be cheering on Blighty in the upcoming game against Scotland; I will not put him on the spot with that one, but I am sure he will, secretly.

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Football clubs are massively important to the history and identity of their communities. In fact, communities were built around such clubs, as we saw in Bury. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) has banged on relentlessly about that; I do not think there is any doughtier a champion for Bury football club’s return to its proper ways. In Burslem, the mother town of Stoke-on-Trent, is Port Vale, surrounded by the terraced houses of the old potbank workers. It very much is the beating heart of the community, as the Minister saw at first hand when he recently came to visit.

As Angus says about the 50+1 model, having fans in charge of key voting rights around the club would help to stop the clear greed of some owners and would allow clubs to be run in a way that benefits the fans, local communities and the good of the game. Clearly, there are some good owners who run their clubs sustainably and allow fans a good level of access to the behind-the-scenes running of the club. My bias will be obvious, but I will mention the Wembley of the north, Port Vale football club’s Vale Park, and Stoke-on-Trent’s second team, Stoke City; obviously I was being sarcastic there, before I get a deluge of abuse on Facebook. I am very lucky to have Port Vale in my constituency and Stoke City FC within the community. Both are run in a truly sustainable and fan-friendly way. To give just a few examples, Stoke City offer free travel for their fans and have frozen their season ticket prices for 14 successive years. Port Vale recently became the English football league community club of the year, having distributed more than 300,000 meals to local people in need during the pandemic. It also has the Port Vale Foundation; with the Hubb Foundation, it was one of the early pioneers in the holiday activities programme, which started in 2017 with the Ay Up Duck programme.

A small club, Milton United football club, raised £1,000 for a local lad, Ashton Hulme, who is getting a top-quality prosthetic leg. Sadly, due to a rare type of bone cancer, he lost his leg, and the academy at Crewe Alexandra have been doing fantastic work to support Ashton and his family at this difficult time, with more than £110,000 raised by local givers. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there are great clubs in the Premier League, such as Leicester City football club. The Foxes Trust tell me that it is broadly happy with how the club’s owners operate and the access it gets to the inner running of its club.

There are many more examples of owners who do not operate in this way, so I agree that there needs to be some reform, giving fans greater input into their clubs. There must surely be a way to protect key aspects of clubs, which are so much more than just businesses, so that their identities are not changed unrecognisably and they are run sustainably. However, the 50+1 model is not realistic for English football. It is hard to see how this kind of ownership structure could be brought in. I also have concerns about the impact it could have on our game. A range of voices, unsurprisingly including club owners but also fan groups, have said that the 50+1 model could seriously discourage investment.

In Germany, which made the 50+1 model famous, Bayern Munich has now won the Bundesliga nine years in a row. There is no significant investment into other clubs in the German league—unless we look at RB Leipzig, for example, where the fans and supporters are all Red Bull employees. One could say that that brings the beautiful game in Germany into disrepute. I do not think that anyone wants to see such things in our country. The 50+1 model is not the only reason, but it does seem to prevent ambitious owners coming forward. Frankly, owners will not want to invest in a club without being able to control its direction. If the 50+1 model is not the answer, what is?

One way to safeguard clubs for fans was suggested by Gary Neville. We could look at the 50+1 model as a veto or a voting structure rather than an ownership structure. Something along the lines of a golden vote on key decisions could be viable. To make changes to the club on heritage issues such as the name and location of the stadium, owners would need to seek the approval of supporters. Another option, as suggested by the Football Supporters’ Association, would be to let supporters buy equity in their club up to a certain percentage—10% or 15%, say—to give them a real say in how the club is run.

As well as giving fans more say in how their clubs are run, wider issues in football need addressing. That is really the crux of the debate and brings me to the second petition, which calls for the introduction of a new, independent football regulator. The petition, which was started by Alex Rolfe, calls for the Government to use the fan-led review of football’s governance to establish an independent regulator. Alex says:

“Like a referee, an independent regulator would safeguard our beautiful game impartially.”

He says that a regulator

“could protect the game against another attempt at a super league or other efforts to put money ahead of fans.”

Gary Neville and Alex agree that, like water companies, energy providers, financial services and the media:

“Football matters to millions and should also have a regulator of its own.”

It does seem that without an independent regulator, the glaring issues in English football will not be resolved. There is no overall leadership, so vested interests continue to prevail. The financial disparity between rich and poor has become obscene, frankly. The game is devoid of agreed priorities. The high-ups in football all know what the problems are, but to date there has been no collective will or incentive for the decision makers to get on with sorting it out.

As many of the people I have spoken to before today have spelled out, the issues are financial disparity and unsustainability, owner suitability rules, a power structure that is fundamentally out of balance, societal issues such as racism and homophobia in the game, and the exploitation of clubs and fans. Gary Neville put it well when he said that the banking crisis was the moment an independent regulator was needed. The European super league is the equivalent crisis in football, and if we are to ensure that the game remains something that we can enjoy as fans, as well as export around the world, the crunch time has arrived.

I will give a few examples to illustrate the scale of the problems. The team placed 20th in the premier league—thankfully, it is not my team, Fulham, which my grandmother indoctrinated me into supporting at the age of five—gets £100 million, whereas the winner of the championship gets just £6 million. Financial sustainability is in real danger, with clubs in the championship spending £837 million on wages despite receiving only £785 million of income in 2018-19.

Safety of Journalists

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Freedom of the press is at the centre of a free society, so I would like to start by talking about West Papua, whose people have been fighting for self-determination from Indonesia for 50 years. In the past month, hundreds of Indonesian soldiers have been deployed to the region and thousands of people have been displaced. In the Papuan struggle for liberation, journalists have been one of Indonesia’s key targets, with restrictions in place on foreign journalists and obstacles to receiving permission to report in the country. Once again, the prominent West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor was targeted in an attack after his reporting of the shooting of two Indonesian teachers in April. Similarly concerning is the fact that the capital of Papua province and surrounding areas have been subject to a month-long internet blackout, complicating the media’s efforts to report on the escalating conflict. The curtailment of journalistic freedom in West Papua is not completely new. In 2018, the Indonesian military deported BBC journalists Rebecca Henschke, and her co-reporters Dwiki and Affan; the crew were deported from West Papua after they hurt soldiers’ feelings when covering the ongoing health crisis in the Asmat region, which involved malnutrition and a lack of measles vaccinations causing a measles outbreak that killed dozens, perhaps hundreds—a lack of reporting means we will never know. According to the Alliance of Independent Journalists in Indonesia, there were 76 cases of journalists having to obtain prior permission to report in Papua, with 56 of these requests being refused.

The unacceptable targeting of media officers in Gaza by Israeli airstrikes earlier this month was another reminder of the importance of upholding press freedom. The freedom to inform is a crucial indicator of democracy and efforts to curtail it often come with human cost. Anna Politkovskaya was a reporter for the independent Novaya Gazeta in Russia and a critic of President Putin. Like many others, I was shocked and horrified when she was shot to death in the lobby of a Moscow apartment in 2006. In the trial relating to her death, the judge was clear that she was killed for her work

“exposing human rights violations, embezzlement and abuse of power”.

The sad reality is that I would no longer be surprised at such a death; it is estimated that 21 journalists have been killed since Putin came to power, and in the great majority of cases no one has been convicted and sentenced for the murders. That is not to say, of course, that the murder of journalists is a uniquely Russian issue. Many other countries have higher death rates, but nearly 15 years after Politkovskaya’s death the space for independent journalism in Russia has become smaller and smaller, while state-backed media have grown stronger and stronger. Many independent publishers have been forced to cease their publications, while Russian state-backed channels such as RT seem immune from accountability. The lack of accountability may or may not be a result of the clear message from the Russian authorities. Action taken against RT in the UK resulted in measures being taken against the BBC in Russia, while the Russian media are free to criticise the BBC as they see fit.

Russia is not the only state on a mission to reduce or remove BBC influence. Last month, I chaired a joint British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union and BBC event on the media in China, and heard how the BBC’s reporting of coronavirus and the persecution of the Uyghurs meant that the Chinese authorities cracked down, removing the BBC World News TV channel outright and banning the BBC World Service in Hong Kong.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman and I share concerns about the escalating persecution of ethnic and religious minorities across the world. Does he agree that journalists have a role to play in raising awareness of issues in China, Russia or wherever it may be, because that is how the rest of the word knows what is going on?

[Alex Sobel]

The freedom of journalistic expression is paramount, including in terms of freedom of religion. The hon. Member makes vital points.

The BBC’s China correspondent has had to move to Taiwan because of safety fears. China’s lack of press freedom is well documented. It sits at 177 out of 180 in the 2021 world press freedom index. Only Turkmenistan, North Korea and Eritrea fall below it. In 2020, a year in which a historically high total of 387 journalists and media workers were detained worldwide, China was the worst offender. In its record-breaking year, at least 274 journalists were locked up for their work. The UK Government must move further and faster in developing an international strategy to defend journalists, media freedom and internet access from authoritarian tendencies across the globe. I hope that that is being discussed at the G7 today.

Of course, the UK is not without fault. The UK ranked just 33rd out of the 180 countries in the 2021 world press freedom index. In February, Andy Aitchison was arrested at his home after photographing a fake blood protest outside the Napier barracks, where asylum seekers were being housed, and still are, even though there has been a High Court ruling against the Government. The police held Mr Aitchison for seven hours and seized his phone and memory card. Mr Aitchison was just doing his job, exercising his right to report freely on the conditions in which asylum seekers are held. He was wrongly arrested and his journalistic material was taken. Still no apology has been forthcoming.

The Government must do better. How can we talk about press freedom without talking about the clearing house: the Orwellian unit that obstructs the release of sensitive information requested by the public under the Freedom of Information Act 2000? In a written judgment, made public on Tuesday, Judge Hughes concluded:

“The profound lack of transparency about the operation…might appear…to extend to Ministers.”

I look forward to the Minister clearing that up for us. As well as blocking FOI requests, the unit is alleged to have profiled journalists. Such a profound lack of transparency at the very heart of Government paints a very concerning picture.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation are taken out with impunity both in the UK and elsewhere. SLAPPs are legal actions, the goal of which is not necessarily to win in court but, rather, to silence the target. Powerful interests wanting to shut down stories can do so by taking legal action that they know will cost the defendant huge sums of money in legal fees and potentially take years to resolve. SLAPPs can be taken out by individual businesses, state actors or any other individual or group with enough money to do so. They may target academic freedom, political expression or, more commonly than ever, the freedom of the press.

SLAPPs can kill an uncomfortable story. They can also have the bigger impact of silencing other critical voices, creating the same culture of fear and silence as through illegal means. The Conservatives talk a good game on freedom of expression, but let us not forget that they have been known to exclude newspapers that they do not agree with from official briefings. I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances on those points.