Channel 4

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

I assure my hon. Friend that this move certainly will make sure that Channel 4 has the tools—a range of tools—to be sustainable in a changing media landscape, where we know that the pressure is on things such as linear advertising, and to help it to continue to be an incubator for the independent production sector, which is home to many jobs in a number of our constituencies.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

After the enormous waste of public money that this political exercise has been, I am very relieved that the Secretary of State has come to this decision. One thing Channel 4 has said is that it wants to thrive in the digital era. What steps is she taking to ensure that the outcome of the Government’s consultation on digital rights for listed sporting events is implemented as quickly as possible?

Creative Industries: North-east

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

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

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the contribution of the creative industries to the North East.

As ever, it is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Today I will speak about the significance and impact that the arts and cultural sector has on our communities and on the economy and, in particular, the huge benefits that Sunderland has seen from recent developments. Sunderland and the wider north-east has always been a hub for culture and creatives. The recent growth in investment and attention shows just how significant the potential of that sector is, and gives a good indication of where we are headed. The many partnerships that the creative industries have developed in the area over the last few years have boosted the opportunities for jobs, the development of skills, and community engagement, as well as bringing people in from near and far. That benefits the local and regional economy.

The creative industries and cultural sector combined are worth just under £1.5 billion in gross value added to the north-east economy. That shows how much the sector contributes, and, more importantly, how much room there is for growth and how far investment has the potential to go. We have seen a 43% increase in the economic value of the creative industries in the north-east over the last 12 years, since I became a Member of Parliament, and a 10% increase in the cultural sector. That is at a time when the Government have cut council budgets, which has in turn been passed on to the creative and cultural sectors, and the pandemic set the sectors back across the north-east and the country.

There are some 3,500 people employed in the sector in Sunderland, and there are tens of thousands of job opportunities across the north-east. Sunderland is a city that has a creative and cultural sector steeped in history, from historic institutions like the Sunderland Empire—a landmark of the city, dating back to 1907, that welcomes over 300,000 visitors every year and attracts many west end shows—to modern collaborations such as Sunderland Culture.

Sunderland Culture, which has just celebrated its 10th anniversary, was founded by a collaboration of the University of Sunderland, Sunderland City Council and Sunderland Music Arts and Culture Trust. It has delivered programmes in the Northern Gallery for Contemporary Art at the National Glass Centre and, most recently, the new Fire Station theatre—the opening of which I had the privilege of attending. It is a stunning auditorium space that has created a home for many of the talented performers of Sunderland. More importantly, it has redeveloped a former fire station, which was a heritage building so has attracted heritage funding. It is beautiful to see that the bars and restaurant attached to the new auditorium are actually the former fire station. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) used to work in that fire station, so it is particularly special when he visits.

The Fire Station theatre has already been host to a range of incredible events, and half of those who have come to visit the venue have been from outside the city. That boosts the local economy by bringing people into the city centre who are going to the bars and restaurants and bringing revenue. In the first four years of its existence, Sunderland Culture can boast that the city has attracted 3.5 million visitors to its venues and programmes. It has helped to host over 1,000 exhibitions, performances and events in the city and online, seen almost 40,000 school visits to cultural venues and had over 150,000 participants of all ages. That is truly an incredible achievement.

The cultural investment in the city does not stop there. We currently have the Sunderland Festival of Light down by the seafront and in Roker park—not the former football ground, but the Victorian park. There are ongoing projects, such as Culture House, a project for learning and creating that will sit in the very centre of the city. Yesterday, we also had a formal announcement of a huge new project in the city. Pallion Engineering announced that it had made a planning application for the development of a huge new production space at Pallion shipyard on the banks of the Wear. This is a sensitive subject for people in Sunderland, as we have a long history of shipbuilding in our city, but the river has changed. Many buildings have been built and the possibility of building ships on our river went when the shipyards were closed by the Government in 1988-89. Tyne and Wear Development Company, which did not need planning permission under the Thatcher and Major Governments, was created. That meant many buildings were built on our riverside, making it impossible to build ships again on our river unless buildings were pulled down. Sadly, although I totally understand the emotion of wanting to bring shipbuilding back to our city, it is not realistically possible. The opportunities in that area with offshore wind and refitting are better placed at our port, a little further down the river.

The building that is the subject of the planning permission application was built in the 1970s and closed in 1989 for building ships, although there has been fabrication work there since then. The history and the new production space are both incredible testaments to the history of our city and its contribution to the world, and also an example of the city’s future. The plans are for 500,000 square feet of creative space, maintaining the existing huge structures, with plans to have the largest covered water studio in the world. That will be a huge thing not just for Sunderland and the north-east, but for the country. There is the potential for creating 1,000 new jobs. Although during the second world war, we were the most productive city in the number of ships built, we can once again be a world leader, with the biggest water studio in the world.

Although developments are in their early stages, the plans are being led by production company Metalwork Pictures USA, Broadwick Live, Pallion Engineering and Kajima Corporation of Japan. This is a great opportunity for regeneration of an area that needs it. It is a great opportunity for the growth of our creative sector and a perfect opportunity for the development of skills and training in the local area. The wheels are already in motion in some of these areas, most notably by the opening last year of Fulwell 73’s new office in the University of Sunderland. An organisation co-founded by Sunderland-born Leo Pearlman, it has produced an incredible list of films, TV series, adverts and music videos, not least the famous Netflix series “Sunderland ’Til I Die” about our beloved football club. It is an incredibly welcome addition to the cultural ecosystem of the city, and forms part of a commitment to upskilling and reskilling in the city. That forms part of a plan to ensure that the sector continues to grow. The transferable nature of skills that have been learned in industry or in apprenticeships over to the creative sector is huge. The latest developments by big production companies provide new opportunities for local people to train and work in the creative industries.

I must also pay tribute to North East Screen, a film agency supporting local productions, helping to drive local talent. It supports incoming productions by connecting companies with crews, filming locations and a host of other north-east creatives, helping to develop the many broadcasting projects coming to the region. Last month, for example, an initiative promoting opportunities for comedy creators was announced, as the first development opportunity of its kind, giving comedy creators in the area the chance to pitch their ideas to the BBC, and gain support in bringing their projects to life. The BBC also announced £25 million investment in the region, drawing on partnerships with local authorities, working together to create growth in skills, talent and creative industry infrastructure.

The importance of public service broadcasting and its commitment to regional programming cannot be overestimated. This is another example of its benefits, in addition to the increased allocation of Arts Council funding for the 2023-26 investment round announced last week. I must at this point praise the commitment to our city from Darren Henley, who is regularly a visitor to our city. In fact, in Select Committee, he has said, “I love Sunderland.”

I believe that the success that we have seen in Sunderland and the wider region and the very good examples of collaboration will be for the benefit of the creative industries as a whole, but there is undoubtedly still much more work to do. Although local partnerships are flourishing and we are finding investment through private initiatives such as the one proposed at Pallion shipyards, per capita investment for Sunderland remains well below that for equivalent cities. There is a long way to go on the levelling up to which the Government are committed, to balance investment across the country.

I would like to ask the Minister today about Government support for skills and training to support the sector in Sunderland, the north-east and, indeed, the wider country. I am aware that there is a cross-over in responsibility between Departments, but I believe that it is the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s responsibility to make the case for the cultural and creative sectors to those other Departments. I look forward to a commitment on that issue from the Minister today, to ensure that the growth is sustained, that local people have access to the new opportunities that my city is gaining and that the benefits of the growth are shared. I also ask the Minister what plans she has to support the growth of the creative industries as a whole in the region, to ensure that schemes that bring vital boosts to the local economy are successful and have the support to be sustainable contributors to local economic growth.

What plans do the Government have to support arts training programmes, and to support young people entering the sector? Reskilling and retraining for those already well versed in skills such as construction and those trained as electricians—accountants are in demand in this area as well—is an extremely valuable resource for the creative sector. We need to look not just at bringing people through school, education, higher education and so on, but at some of those transferable skills that, with small tweaks and small training programmes, could be very effective in this area. The University of Sunderland has done an incredible job, now in collaboration with Fulwell 73, to provide an extremely high-quality training programme for young people, but the number of students starting arts courses has fallen in the last 10 years. That simply must be rectified. The value and contribution, and the potential, of the sector must be recognised.

Covid-related issues are ongoing. Many freelancers in this area of work went on to find other jobs at the height of the pandemic, because they slipped through the net of a lot of the support that was available. They have left the industry and are not coming back. We need, and the Government need, to look to see whether that can be addressed to encourage some of those people back with the opportunities that are available.

Some incredible projects have been launched in Sunderland recently, and there is potential from yesterday’s announcement, but there is still a lot of work to do. I look forward to the Minister getting behind the growth in the region’s drive to grow its creative and cultural sector, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.

Women’s Elite Sport: Prize Money

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered prize money in women’s elite sport.

It is a pleasure, as ever, Sir Charles, to speak under your chairmanship. I am grateful to the Speaker for granting this debate on such an important subject at a critical time for women’s sport.

The issue of prize money in women’s sport featured quite prominently in a debate on women’s football that I led in this Chamber back in January, and it is great to see the Minister announce that there is to be a review into women’s football, as recommended in the fan-led review, the call for which I and many colleagues echoed in that debate. I am sure that the issue of prize money will be included in that. Taken alongside the news that the Women’s EURO taking place in England this summer and the women’s World Cup will be added to the listed events regime, it is a great time for women to be involved in sport. The Minister said in the previous debate that the Government were minded to agree to that change in the regime, so I am very glad that that has now been confirmed. Visibility is vital and I think that will go a long way towards improving women’s sport.

One of the other issues raised by colleagues in the debate was the difference in FA cup prize money that the women’s teams received in comparison with the men’s. At the time of the debate, the women’s competition received 2% of the total prize money received by the men. I am sure most people would be shocked by that. Even if we take into account the fact that around double the number of teams play in the men’s competition, the disparity was huge.

It was therefore extremely welcome that the FA announced two days after the debate that it was to raise the prize money for the women’s game tenfold. The final figure of rewards for the women’s FA cup is still only 20% of what the men get, but this is good progress and I must pay tribute to the FA for its swift action in increasing support for the women’s competition. The FA has already noted that the distribution of that money will be disproportionately directed towards the early stages of the competition, which will go a long way in supporting clubs that need that extra funding, given that some made a loss on their FA cup games in the past and many had to be crowdfunded in order to fulfil games in the event that they progressed further than their budget predicted. The FA has done some incredible work in growing the women’s game, and the increase in the women’s FA cup prize money will help put the money where the game needs it most.

While I start with the good news, I intend this debate to be on wider issues of equality in sport, not just football. I have long taken a keen interest in equal pay in sport, and given the work done by the Telegraph women’s sports team on the new Close The Gap campaign, I believe now is the right time to bring the matter forward. I must thank Anna Kessel, Jeremy Wilson, Molly McElwee, Fiona Tomas and Tom Garry for all their research on this area and their work in bringing the issue to light. The campaign was launched a few weeks ago with the support of incredible sports icons, including Dame Laura Kenny, Steph Houghton and Ian Wright, and it seeks to highlight the massive disparity in prize money awarded to men and women in elite sports, both in the UK and abroad. Jessica Ennis-Hill, who wrote in support of the campaign, said:

“We all tell our children that everyone is equal. I always say to my daughter, ‘Girls can do anything,’ and she says, ‘and boys can too!’ But one day they will go out into the big wide world and they will realise, ‘No, this isn’t actually equal, there is a big discrepancy.’”

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that financial support for young women’s teams, which sets the scene for later years, feeds into the very issue of inequity that she is talking about, and that funding for young women’s and girls’ football teams is crucial to setting the cultural scene?

[Julie Elliott]

Absolutely—and, as I have said, not just in football; this debate is happening across sport more widely. Unfortunately, that is where we are with sport.

Jessica Ennis-Hill went on to say:

“Many of us know the story of how tennis made huge strides around equal prize money, with Billie Jean King and Venus Williams, and others, lobbying for change, but you do not hear much about the discrepancies in other sports. It tends to go under the radar. Unless you are a diehard sports fan most of us probably are not aware how different the prize money scales are across different events. It is only when you take the time to delve into it, and look at the numbers. Then you cannot help but think it is just ridiculous.”

So let us look at the numbers. The men’s European championship in football, which was held in this country last year, saw the men awarded a total prize pot of some £335 million. The women’s European championship, which will be held in this country this year, will see women receive a total prize pot of £13.4 million. The champions league, which of course we do not solely host but many of our clubs play in, offers a £1.6 billion prize fund to the men, but just £20 million to the women.

Snooker is a sport that historically women have been allowed to play, but without equal access to facilities in venues such as working men’s clubs, and therefore they have struggled to gain access to it. Snooker’s world championship winner is awarded a £500,000 prize, but the winner of the women-only competition receives just £5,000.

In cricket, the International Cricket Council’s one-day international World cup for men, which was held in England and Wales in 2019, awards just over £7.5 million. The women’s competition, which was held in New Zealand this year, awarded only a third of that—£2.6 million—although I understand that the ICC is working towards making the situation more equitable.

Without going into too many more numbers, as I am sure people will get the picture from those snapshots, I will offer as a final example rugby union, the sport that I really enjoy—watching, not playing. Although it was difficult to get any finite data on the Six Nations, I understand that the tournament says it does not award prize money but instead awards the participating teams a tenth of its annual revenue from the men’s tournament—that is reportedly around £16 million, although, as I said, exact numbers are unclear—relative to performance. There is no such distribution of revenue in the women’s tournament. Jessica Ennis-Hill said in her article on the campaign for equality:

“At last year’s women’s Six Nations…some teams had to manage without sanitary bins, fresh kit, or even hot showers—it is a hard pill to swallow being underpaid compared to your male compatriots.”

At a global level, World Rugby says that it does not do prize money, but there is a “participation grant” in the men’s World cup, which is awarded depending on performance, whereas the women get a “preparation grant”.

I could go on. In golf, women consistently get much less money than men; in tennis, there have been some famous successes, but around the world the situation is still variable; and in cycling, the men’s Tour de France offers a prize pot of almost £2 million to men and just over a tenth of that to women.

The numbers are important because they paint a picture and they show an attitude. First, it is about respect. To reach the levels in elite sport that these athletes reach takes extreme dedication; it takes many hours of practice, energy and commitment to get to the pinnacle of a particular sport. Yet the nature of unequal prize money means that the effort of one person is valued so much more than that of another—in some instances, 10 times or even 20 times more. If we consider the situation purely on the basis of respect, then it is demonstrably unfair.

Secondly, it is about sport being a livelihood and something that athletes can commit time to, in order to take them to the top of the game. Whether that is a world cup, a world championship or the Olympics, it takes time and costs money. When the prize money for even the few who win is not enough for them to commit to an effective and long-lasting training programme in order to sustain high levels of performance, what of those who place lower down but work just as hard? That is part of the reason why there are far fewer female athletes, and why so many more female athletes need second jobs outside their sport—any possible hard-fought win does not provide enough to sustain the process full time. As Jessica Ennis-Hill writes,

“in some sports prize money is an essential part of our income, rather than a cash bonus.”

This takes me to my third point—the wider benefit to the sport of providing a more evenly financially rewarding playing field. The ability for an athlete to make their sport their full-time job is of benefit not only to them, but to the sport’s future. By giving more time to the sport, they are able not only to raise their game and compete on a larger stage for more reward, but to raise the game of those around them and those who train with them. They are able to spend more time in training facilities, learning from the best and passing on what they know to those who are following in their footsteps. And they are able to inspire more young boys and girls to get involved, and perhaps be future champions themselves.

Many of the organisations that I have mentioned will talk about their investment in women’s sport and the money that they put in elsewhere, but the issue of prize money is symbolic as much as anything else. One of the key metrics that they often refer to is commercial revenue; they say that the women do not bring in as much money. But we simply must place that in the context of women being banned for so long from playing different sports—they were banned for 50 years from playing football—of the unequal access to facilities, and of the attitude towards women playing sport that still exists today, as researchers at the University of Leicester reported earlier this year. That has had an effect on the commercial revenues available to people, especially as the visibility of women’s sport still suffers from historical inequalities.

There has been progress in this area. It is clear that women’s sport is getting more coverage than ever. That is testament to those at the BBC, under the incredible leadership of Barbara Slater, and at Sky, for example. There are brand-new deals on women’s sport, and there is the greater exposure that many women who play elite sport receive today. But ultimately, as the organisation Women in Sport notes, women’s sport still accounts for only about 10% of total sports coverage, and when we flick through the sports pages of newspapers, we still have to look much more closely to find women’s sport. There are many excellent journalists out there who are doing all they can to bring attention to women’s sport—not least those whom I mentioned earlier—but there is still so much more to do.

The lack of general coverage and the historical context in which elite sportswomen have operated contribute to the arguments about lower commercial revenue. I know that many of the organisations will point to commitments to raise their game, but it would be wrong not to take this opportunity to say that more can always be done. Above all, this is about a fairer distribution, about respect, and about ensuring that children and young people have the chance to see people like them competing at the highest levels of their sport and to think, “That could be me, too.” I therefore ask the Minister what plans he has to work with governing bodies towards a fairer deal for women’s sport and how he will go about continuing the huge growth that we have seen in women’s sport in the last decade.

I will end with a quote from Steph Houghton, the former Lionesses captain, whom we are extremely proud of in my city of Sunderland; she is a former Sunderland player who grew up in the city. She said this in support of the campaign:

“The prize money in women’s sport to reward and acknowledge personal and team achievements continues to fall incredibly short. Football clubs and sponsors are increasing investment into the sport more than ever before, but prize money seems to have a glass ceiling that needs to be broken. Let’s work together to #CloseTheGap.”

We have seen cracks in the glass ceiling. I am with Steph—let’s break it.

Women’s Football

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they are expected to wear a face covering when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission, and that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test before coming on to the estate. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the experience of women playing football in England.

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members in attendance. I can see that there is some incredible expertise on the subject in the Chamber, and I look forward to hearing others’ contributions. I am glad to have secured the debate, which has come at an important time for women’s football, not least because of the situation that Coventry United women players faced just before Christmas. The players and staff found out two days before Christmas that the club was in financial trouble and their contracts were to be terminated, only to be saved at the eleventh hour on 4 January by a new buyer for the club.

Women’s football has seen incredible growth in the last few years. That is down to increased opportunity and, importantly, visibility. The Football Association, under the leadership of Baroness Sue Campbell and Kelly Simmons, has done a great job in getting young girls and women playing football, as shown in the FA’s latest “Gameplan for Growth” report, published in 2020. Between 2017 and 2020, the FA doubled participation in grassroots football among women and girls, and doubled fans attending international and women’s super league matches. I thoroughly enjoyed, in spite of the cold, going to see the Lionesses as they played at the Stadium of Light last year in the World cup qualifiers. It is great to see them going around the country and playing to different audiences. The Lionesses will always be very welcome in Sunderland and I hope they return soon. That highlights the importance of visibility in the growth of the sport.

The BBC, for example, has done a great job in helping build the sport’s profile. It will provide live network TV and radio coverage of the women’s Euros, which take place in England this summer. It was the first to cover a whole Lionesses campaign, when it showed every game of their 2015 World cup run, and attracted 28 million people to watch the 2019 World cup campaign. Those are truly incredible numbers, showing the value of the BBC as a public service broadcaster, which I am sure the Minister recognises, while also showing that, when women’s football and women’s sport is on TV, it brings in viewers.

Do not let those stuck in the dark ages say that people are not interested in women’s sport. A report released by academics at Durham University last week exposed the levels of misogyny still present among male football supporters, with some respondents remarking how women should not participate in sport at all, or at least stick to perceived feminine sports, such as athletics, and that the media reporting of women’s sport is PC nonsense or positive discrimination.

Let me say on the record that they are wrong, and the numbers back that up. Visibility matters, and seeing women play sport on TV makes a difference. The importance of visibility cannot be overstated. Work by the Women’s Sport Trust shows that it is having an effect. Sky Sport’s new deal has already brought in almost 8 million new viewers in the early stages of the new women’s super league season. Around nine in 10 of those viewers had not watched women’s super league in the previous four seasons. The commitment that organisations, such as the BBC and now Sky, have shown to women’s football and women’s sport in general has given young girls across the country the opportunity to see good sporting role models. It is truly invaluable to see people who look like them do amazing things. It does wonders for the confidence of those just starting out on their playing journeys, no matter how far they decide to go.

I would like to ask the Minister where the Government are up to in considering adding the women’s equivalent of the men’s sports to the listed events regime. I understand that the Government are open to consultation on that. The Minister for Media wrote to me in November, saying that it takes time, but could the Minister today give me a more definitive timescale for when the consultation is likely to conclude? The case for equality is overwhelming. With the visibility of women’s sport and women’s football rocketing, there is even more reason to get the future of the sport right.

The situation at Coventry United women’s football club was so concerning, which it is why it is important to debate the issue. Coventry plays in the second tier of women’s football, turning professional only last summer, becoming the fourth fully professional team in the women’s championship. Many of the Coventry women had left good careers to achieve their dream of playing professional football. Many of them had supported the team for many years. Yet, on 23 December, two days before Christmas, the women were told that training was cancelled, and the players, who had not been paid in four weeks, were invited to a Zoom meeting at 10 am, in which they were told that their contracts were being terminated. That is a dreadful way to inform someone of that news.

One of the Coventry players, Anna Wilcox, told Radio Plus Coventry:

“It was just a feeling of emptiness, thinking that now I’ve lost the club that I played for for a long, long time…It hit a lot of players and a lot of staff so hard. I really don’t think we will be the last, unless something changes.”

There are many issues that emerge here. The first is governance. Women’s football has a range of different governance structures. Some teams are connected to men’s teams, such as in my own city of Sunderland, with some of those being rich premier league teams such as Manchester City and Arsenal. Other teams are independent of any men’s teams and operate on their own, such as Coventry United. Then there are fan-owned teams such as Lewes, who are doing extraordinary things under the leadership of Maggie Murphy. The range of governance structures means that there is an array of different financial arrangements, but the situation that arose at Coventry is one that could happen to any team at the will of their owner, especially as it is reported that Coventry were given FA money earlier than was planned, to help them through what they knew to be a difficult period. It is unclear where that money went.

The difference in the nature of ownership means that it is incredibly unhelpful to compare the situation in the women’s game with that in the men’s game. Therefore, I agree with the recommendation in the fan-led review led by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is present, that the women’s game needs its own review to look into the issues and challenges that the game faces.

The second issue I wish to highlight is the working conditions of women players. The average wage in the men’s championship is around £35,000 a week. The average wage of the Coventry women’s team when they went into liquidation in December was just £16,000 a year, which equates to £308 a week. Although there are a multitude of reasons why the pay is different—not least the 50-year ban on women playing the sport—it is obvious that women’s experience of playing football is totally different from that of men. Although I am not saying that the women’s game is at the same stage as the men’s game, it is clear that the women’s game does not receive the respect it deserves. In women’s football, contracts are often shorter and the pay is low. Therefore, it is extremely hard for players and staff alike to plan for their future.

One of the most prominent examples of the working conditions of women footballers and their experience of playing is that of Birmingham City Women. When they were in ninth place in the top tier of the football pyramid in 2021, they came together to send a formal letter to their own club to bring to light their working conditions, because their previous request to meet the board about the issue was denied. This team are connected to a men’s team, but at the point of sending the letter, only three players were understood to be under contract for the following season. In reaction to the reports, the spokesperson for the club said:

“Both men and women’s first teams are yet to secure survival in their respective leagues. This makes it hard to start contract negotiations.”

I am afraid that I disagree with the spokesperson. Not being under contract also makes it hard for women to plan their futures.

The issue of maternity rights for players impacts on their lives hugely. In research conducted by Dr Alex Culvin last year, players were quoted as saying they

“need longer contracts so we feel more secure. I shouldn’t have to think I need to sign a four-year contract because I want to have a baby, so I know they’ll pay me.”

However, I understand that a new player contract has been agreed between the FA and the Professional Footballers Association that includes maternity cover and long-term sickness cover. I understand that this is a standardised contract that would cover players playing in both the women’s super league and the championship. If that is accurate and is to be implemented, it will be a massive step forward for the status of women footballers and, more importantly, for the terms and conditions and employment rights that they experience. I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard in the game to get to this point.

That does not mean that we stop here, though. Although it is great news, there is still work to do. At the moment, only women who have played in the top tier of women’s football—the women’s super league—are eligible for PFA support. This needs to change, and the PFA needs to widen its remit to support all professional women players. Although the PFA runs workshops for male players on post-career options and life worries, it should offer the same services to women players. That issue is one of a package of issues in the women’s game that need to be looked at.

The investment put into the game by organisations such as Barclays has done so much to further the opportunities that are available, but we undoubtedly need a new formula that provides ample funding for the women’s game at the grassroots level and beyond, because the existing funding can only go so far. That is why it is so important that the Government listen to the fan-led review and bring forward an equivalent review into the women’s game.

I know that the Minister has said that we should expect a reply to the fan-led review in the spring, but a whole season—spring—is not a deadline and the women’s game is in need of review now.

While I talk about women’s football, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the incredible work done by Khalida Popal in bringing the Afghan girls team over to the United Kingdom. This debate is focused on the experience of women playing football in England and I am extremely proud that these Afghan girls are now able to come and experience exactly that. There are tremendous opportunities in this country for young girls to advance in the sport and I am so happy that these Afghan girls were able to come here and continue to play the game they love, in safety and with support. Khalida’s work has been inspirational and I am sure that all Members here today will join me in thanking her.

In conclusion, I return to the fan-led review. The Government have said, in an answer to a written parliamentary question that I submitted earlier this year, that they

“welcome the Independent Fan Led Review of Football Governance and…endorsed in principle the primary recommendation of the review, that football requires a strong, independent regulator to secure the future of our national game.”

Can the Minister endorse in principle recommendation 45 of the report, which is that a wholesale review of women’s football should be conducted? Also, can he provide a more specific timeframe for when the Government will publish their full response to the fan-led review?

I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say in this debate and to hearing the Minister’s answers to the questions put by myself and others.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

This debate will finish no later than 5.55 pm. If hon. and right hon. Members can all keep their speeches to around five minutes, everyone should get in before we call the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julie Elliott]

I thank all colleagues for their contributions. There is general consensus on the broad issues that women’s football faces. I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for his contribution and the Minister for his response. I am pleased about what he said about listed events. I am disappointed that he has not gone further on the fan-led review, and that he has not committed in principle to starting the women’s review, which was recommendation 45 of that review. We do not need to wait for the entire Government response to the incredibly thorough fan-led review before agreeing to that in principle. I ask him to look at that again, and to see whether the Government can respond sooner. They need only say, “Yes, in principle we agree.” That does not merit our waiting for the response to the whole review. I thank everyone for attending; it has been a very worthwhile debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)]

The shared rural network will eliminate the partial notspots across huge swathes of the country, particularly in Yorkshire and the Humber; it will take the region from 95% to 99% coverage from at least one operator, and from 81% to 90% coverage from all four operators. I know how hard my hon. Friend has been working on this issue, and I look forward to working with him to continue that progress.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

May I take this opportunity to wish the Sunderland Empire in my constituency a happy 114th birthday? The Government boast free trade deals with 17 countries, each having different rules, making the situation almost as hard as it is with countries with which we do not have trade deals. When are the Government going to sort this out and get a deal to allow our artists, musicians, truckers and support staff to tour across Europe properly, and save this industry before it is too late?

[The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)]

We are 100% aware of the importance of the UK’s creative and cultural industries, and the importance of musicians and performers being able to tour easily abroad. We have moved with great urgency to provide the clarity that they need about the current position. Through our engagement with member states, we have established that at least 17 of the 27, including France, Germany and Italy—some of the biggest economic contributors—do allow visa and permit-free touring. We continue to talk to the others.

Events Research Programme

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

First, I have to say that that is a fantastic tie. In terms of the events sector, my hon. Friend knows as well as I do, as a west midlands MP, that he is making a really important point. As for the per capita contribution, the business events sector is greatest in the west midlands. We have major, fantastic, world-class events facilities and we want to get them back up and running as soon as possible. I look forward to working with him, because he is a fantastic champion for his constituents, to make sure that we can do so as soon as possible. I hope that we will have—we are planning on having—a business event in the latest programme as well. The final details, which have yet to be concluded on, will be announced soon.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

The cancellation of Kendal Calling in the north of England has been devastating to the whole region. In the statement that Kendal Calling issued, it said that its understanding was that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport had the information from the events research programme and could release it, but that No. 10 did not want it released. That is staggering if true. What assessment has the Minister made of the economic impact on the livelihoods of people working in this area in the north of England specifically, because many of the events being mentioned here are in the south? There seems to be a huge lack of recognition of the hugely important work done in the north and the number of people’s jobs that rely on the industry.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that we recognise the importance of these sectors right across the country. If she remembers, phase 1 of the events research programme had a particular focus on Liverpool because of its ability to work with and focus with us. I recognise that some of the events that have been announced recently are particularly focused in the south. We will announce more events right across the country. She makes a really important point: these sectors thrive in the right conditions right across the country, and I want to work with them to do so again. They are hugely important to all our constituencies.

Football Governance

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.

I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall, and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room.

If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks, whose email address is westminsterhallclerks @parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move into the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can only speak from the horseshoe, where there are microphones.

I must also say that, because of the weather today, I am very happy if gentlemen wish to remove their jackets. To try to get everybody in, at this point I will impose an informal three-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Elliott.

I want to begin by congratulating England on their win against Croatia. This group of players showcase the very best of a multicultural, socially conscious country. Sunday’s goal was assisted by a player of Jamaican and Irish descent, and finished by a striker who was born in Jamaica and raised in a diverse borough in north-west London. However, what is special about this team goes beyond the pitch—from Raheem Sterling, who was recognised this week for his anti-racist work in sport, to Marcus Rashford, who has ensured that millions of working-class kids have been fed during the holidays.

It is not just the players. In response to boos by supposed fans and to Conservative MPs who said that they would boycott the team, the manager has been clear that we have a duty to stand up for our values, so I would like to commend Gareth Southgate, the players and the vast majority of the fans, who backed the decision to take the knee.

Our clubs are not just businesses; they are part of our communities and the social fabric that binds us together. The European super league debacle showed once and for all that clubs should not be the playthings of billionaires, but that was not the beginning of the problem. Football has been going down this trajectory for a number of years, as can be seen in the ever widening gap between the clubs at the top and the rest of the pack. In a single season, the premier league clubs made combined operating profits of £900 million, compared with the combined losses of more than £400 million for the 72 clubs in the championship, league one and league two. Financial unsustainability for these clubs is now an ever present danger. We know this also from Coventry, where financial challenges prevented the Sky Blues from owning the stadium that they had helped to build, repeatedly forcing the team to play home games outside the city. I am pleased to say that next year they are returning to Coventry, but the underlying problems remain.

The European super league plans might be gone, but billionaire owners will continue to put their greed before our clubs and our communities. Instead of tinkering around the edges, we need to address the problem at its root. That means taking ownership out of the hands of the out-of-touch elites and giving it back to the fans, and that is what the 50+1 rule would do, as it does in Germany, where no teams were part of the super league plans and where ticket prices are significantly lower. Football was created by the working class, but it has been stolen by the rich. It is time that we took it back.

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

I call Alex Davies-Jones.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

This Budget is taking place at a key time for the economy of this country. It is an economy coming out of a crisis that has caused businesses to shut and jobs to be lost, and that has harmed the prospects and potential of so many people across this country. The Budget was a chance to conduct a transformative change as we emerge from the crisis, to make the country fairer for all, to reward our key workers and to build a secure and prosperous future that ensures that any economic recovery from the pandemic is felt right across the country. It is clear, though, that the Budget failed to do that.

The Chancellor talks about support for the north-east, but travel any further north than Teesside and it is clear that the Government have forgotten us. The council in Sunderland, like many across the country, has done a brilliant job throughout the pandemic, working tirelessly to support businesses and providing vital services on a shoestring budget, but the Budget falls well short in helping it to do its job. Across the country, there are people who have had lifelong jobs suddenly finding themselves unemployed, and millions of children in this country are still living in poverty. What does this Budget do for them, and what does it do for the millions already excluded?

Then it emerged that our NHS workers, who have been working harder than ever over the last year, saving lives and taking care of our loved ones, will be given at best only a 1% pay rise, coming out of this year with a real-terms pay cut. Then there is our social care system, which was not mentioned once by the Chancellor—no funding lifeline for a system on its knees; no support for care homes or those who devote their lives to working in them. Our NHS and social care staff deserve much better.

Let me move on to the digital skills agenda and the proposals that the Chancellor outlined last week. I wrote to him on this subject, and while any investment in digital skills is welcome—from the boot camps announced last year to the announcement of help to fund software upgrades and training for SMEs—it seems that he is looking at sticking plasters rather than at solving the issue of digital inequality. That seems like the theme of this Budget.

Thanks to charities such as Laptops for Kids in the north-east and Rebuyer UK based in Sunderland, many more children and young people have had access to technology and connectivity. That is great for education—those new devices can be used both at home and in school—but it causes new issues too. It widens the gap. The Government need a comprehensive strategy for upskilling those who are out of work to provide support and devices to those who need them. The Budget was underwhelming, unequal and unsurprising.

Covid-19: Cultural and Entertainment Sectors

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]]

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) back to her place.

The importance of this sector cannot be underestimated. In 2019, the entertainment and cultural sectors contributed £10.5 billion and more than 200,000 jobs to the economy. These are often highly-skilled jobs, from musicians and actors to those in production and sound tech, including engineers, electricians and many skilled professionals. That is only the economic benefit; never mind the happiness and joy that this sector gives to so many of us. The sector has been very hard hit by the pandemic, with the trade body for live music reporting revenue of almost zero since its start. Although there have been livestream shows, they do not replace the feeling of everyone getting together for live events. I am a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and we have heard evidence about the precariousness of the economics of festivals and the inability of streaming to replace the income that artists would have received from events that have had to be cancelled.

There are some great examples of businesses in the sector adapting, not least Generator, an industry support agency in the north-east run by CEO Hannah Matterson. Generator has worked with more than 190 artists, providing over 1,000 hours of support online since the start of the pandemic, from meet-ups to online masterclasses on production and marketing, helping musicians to develop their careers. It has done a remarkable job, and I am sure that the shocking figures published by the Musicians’ Union, showing that 34% of musicians are considering abandoning their career and that another 37% are unsure of their future, would be much higher if it were not for organisations such as Generator.

This is an industry that Britain is famous for and that we export around the world, and the Government must be more proactive in supporting it. The support package was welcome, but many thousands are missing out and are still not supported properly by Government. On top of that, there is the immense issue that future tours will face, thanks to the Government’s failure to negotiate an adequate visa situation for artists to tour around Europe. A music or cultural export office is a great idea that will help big productions but not small artists who are starting out. The Government need to act. They have published a road map, but we have waited a week for the funding package. We hope to hear—and we must hear—in the Budget tomorrow what support the Government are going to give to this hugely important industry.

Digital Infrastructure, Connectivity and Accessibility

Julie Elliott Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing the debate, with support from me, on this absolutely crucial subject. Most unusually, I agree with almost everything she said.

When we talk about digital connectivity and accessibility, we must talk about the digital divide. This is the different experience of those who have suitable internet connections and those who do not: enough devices in the home for homework and education; enough internet capability, suitable broadband or enough phone data; and the skills to access such capabilities. The Good Things Foundation noted, in its blueprint for a 100% digitally included UK, that 9 million people cannot use the internet independently and that 23% of the poorest families do not have home access to broadband and a computer. Four out of 10 of those claiming social security lack all the essential digital skills. This is a regional issue, too. Some 49% of people in the south-east are using the internet fully, compared with 18% in the north-east and 31% in the north-west. That creates a massive divide in life chances and potential. Covid brought that sharply into focus, with families not having enough devices at home or data, and with people choosing between data, heating and food. The choices are stark and there have been months of lost education. Brilliant campaigns, such as DevicesDotNow headed by Liz Williams, were never given a penny of Government support to roll out the massive impact that could have been made in righting this digital divide.

We need a new focus on lifelong learning in digital skills, while ensuring our children get the best education they can with the digital skills that are applicable to the workplace, not necessarily a focus on coding. We also need support for teachers and adults to get the training they need, too.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the price tag for our being undereducated in relation to the internet and tech is estimated to be £60 billion? At a time like this, that is money we need.

[Julie Elliott]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.

It is estimated that those in work need to update their skills every five months. That needs a strategic and co-ordinated approach. People often need to retrain to get new jobs, but people already in employment also need to ensure that they constantly update their skills as the world of work constantly evolves. That has not been helped in recent weeks by the Government’s decision to scrap Unionlearn, which did amazing work in this arena.

There is a plan to combat this in Sunderland, the city I represent along with two other colleagues. The Sunderland Smart City plan is designed to leave no one behind. One year ago, Sunderland City Council delivered on its promise to install and begin the city-wide rollout of free superfast public wi-fi, using 5G digital technology. It is already delivering wi-fi to Hudson Road Primary School, two community rooms in local tower blocks in the city centre, and along a coastal stretch between Roker and Seaburn, with more to come later this year and in 2021. It supports individuals and businesses, and has had over 7.5 new instances of wi-fi use and a total of 18,500 connections to wi-fi from January to October 2020. We are one of the first cities in the UK to do this and the take-up is proof that it is working well.

The investment in skills must be combined with proper investment in infrastructure, as outlined by the right hon. Member for Tatton. This must be a combined approach. Investment in gigabit broadband infrastructure on its own only makes faster internet for those who can access it, furthering digital inequalities. It does not benefit those who have not had sufficient access to begin with. It makes inequalities worse.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital skills, I have heard from national and local organisations from around the country about what has worked and what has not. We wrote to the Chancellor before the spending review proposing a great digital catch-up, championed by Helen Milner and the Good Things Foundation, with Government investment in skills, co-ordinated nationally through existing national networks of trusted local organisations. The Secretary of State for Education has announced boot camps for digital skills, but that is not the answer to the problems we face.

In our report, we recommended investment in existing programmes for device distribution, such as DevicesDotNow, and in existing community groups that work in harder-to-reach communities, teaching digital literacy. More must be done to educate people about online fraud and equip them with the skills to identify fraud and report it. We need to invest in lifelong learning hubs in partnership with local authorities and businesses, and we need more cross-departmental collaboration. Those recommendations would benefit not just the individual, the learner, the worker, the jobseeker, the older generation or the young—all good things—but the economy, as clearly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). As we move out of the restrictions that the covid crisis has brought to all our lives, we must ensure that all our citizens have the data, devices and digital skills we need for the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am now reducing the time limit to five minutes.