TV Licences for Over-75s

Laura Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), and I agree with all of her comments and those made by others on the Opposition Benches.

I am pleased that we are having this debate today about a welfare provision that is currently received by more than 7,000 older people in Crewe and Nantwich—and I stress that this is a welfare provision. Effectively to outsource responsibility for welfare policy to the BBC, an organisation that is supposed to be independent of Government, is cynical and irresponsible. I am deeply concerned about the impact this decision will have on the older people I represent.

As we have heard, four in 10 older people say that television is their main source of company. Last year, the Prime Minister launched the Government’s first loneliness strategy, saying:

“This strategy is only the beginning of delivering a long and far reaching social change in our country—but it is a vital first step in a national mission to end loneliness in our lifetimes.”

The Prime Minister also set out a number of commitments, including adding loneliness to the ministerial portfolio at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and promising to incorporate loneliness into ongoing policy decisions with a view to a loneliness policy test being included in the Department’s plans. Can the Minister tell the House today whether this decision passed that test?

In addition to my concern that this decision will exacerbate our national loneliness crisis, I am concerned that it comes at a time when progress in tackling pensioner poverty has stalled. The estimated cost of funding this provision is more than the BBC’s current annual spend on all its radio services, and far more than it currently spends on its children’s television services, CBBC and CBeebies. It is difficult to see how the BBC can ever fund this provision with its current level of funding without a significant impact on the range or quality of services it provides.

I am also concerned about the impact this decision could have on the wider UK creative industries. A report in 2015 concluded that the BBC directly invests more than £1.2 billion outside the organisation, benefiting at least 2,700 different creative suppliers. In addition, the skills and experience gained by those working at and with the BBC inevitably go on to benefit the whole sector, which made a record contribution of more than £100 billion to the UK economy in 2017.

Finally, however, I return to the point I made at the beginning of my contribution: the free TV licence for over-75s is a welfare provision. Political decisions regarding the future of any such provision surely rest with the Government and with the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Would it not be wrong for the Government to take a means-tested approach to the subsidy of TV licences for the over-75s, on the basis that the process would probably cost them more to administer than they would save?

[Laura Smith]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comment, and I am pleased to see that his party is standing with us today in saying that what the Government have done is wrong. I will continue with my comments and come back to that point in a second, if that is okay.

The Conservative party seemed to recognise the important fact that the free TV licence for over-75s was a welfare provision when it made a political promise to voters in its 2017 manifesto. To quote the manifesto directly, the Conservatives promised to

“maintain all other pensioner benefits, including free bus passes, eye tests, prescriptions and TV licences, for the duration of this Parliament.”

But we know that the Government had already set the stage for scrapping free TV licences back in 2015, which raises the question: why did they make that promise in 2017? How many of those other benefits can we expect to see outsourced as the Government continue to shirk their responsibilities to our pensioners?

Perhaps the most concerning factor is that this is just one of the Government’s abject failures to stand up for older people in our communities. Alongside our loneliness crisis and the worrying signs around pensioner poverty, we have had a social care crisis that has simply been ignored. Years after they first promised a social care Green Paper, and after several delays, we still have not seen one. Professor Martin Green, the chair of the International Longevity Centre and chief executive of Care England, described the UK as “completely and institutionally ageist” in December last year. Today, the Government must acknowledge their failings and take the first steps towards restoring trust in politics by committing to honouring their promises to voters and funding free TV licences.

Football: Safe Standing

Laura Smith Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

Several Crewe Alexandra supporters are currently in Russia enjoying the World Cup and are tweeting at me all the time about the atmosphere. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as football fans around the world and in Europe enjoy safe standing, UK fans should be given the same choice?

[Mr Clarke]

I agree. The case that rail seats work has been well made in Germany over a number of years, so the idea that we would be taking a step into the unknown is simply untrue. We see that this works abroad; indeed, I think most people would say that the atmosphere in German stadiums is better than in ours. The case for safe standing has been made. We will obviously need to consult on this change if we are to make it; it would not be appropriate for us politicians to prejudge all the different aspects of this debate. I hope the Minister will encourage a review of this, because the case deserves sensible consideration.

In that meeting at the Riverside, we watched a really impressive presentation put together by a Bristol City fan. I can certainly obtain it and I urge hon. Members to watch it, because it sets out that case very clearly and emphasises that we are not returning to the bad old days of the ’80s and terraces. This debate is obviously in the shadow of history and it is all too easy to imagine that we are calling for a regressive step, which this is not. It is absolutely about embracing the latest technology.

Safeguarding Children and Young People in Sport

Laura Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Whistleblowing is important and must be catered for as far as possible. Clubs should be able to report things higher up and whistleblowers’ reports should be properly investigated.

Having mentioned coaches, I want to turn to the definition of “regulated activity”. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 tightened the definition of regulated activity in relation to children to mean working “regularly” —four or more days in a 30-day period—and “unsupervised” with children. Coaching falls into that category. If someone satisfies those criteria, sports clubs can carry out an enhanced DBS—Disclosure and Barring Service—check, with barred list check to see whether the individual is barred from working with children. However, it is an offence for a club to ask for an enhanced DBS check on an individual if the role does not require one. For example, the coach who coaches the youth team every Thursday night would be classified as falling into that category, but their assistant, who is technically supervised by the coach, would not be caught by that legislation.

Supervision does not always prevent abuse from happening, as it often happens in plain view, with people disbelieving that someone whom they have got to know well and even considered a friend could ever commit such vile acts of abuse.

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I would like to place on the record my support and complete admiration for those victims who have so bravely spoken out about their terrible experiences at the hands of Barry Bennell. They were let down. My constituents who were victims are fighting tirelessly so that something like that can never happen again. It is so important that no stone is left unturned.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. Let me reiterate my plea for hon. Members not to refer to cases that are before the courts.

[Laura Smith]

He was found guilty.

[Bambos Charalambous]

I think that my hon. Friend was referring to someone who has been convicted. We should congratulate the people who came forward and whose cases led to convictions. More cases may follow, and we do not want to go into that area, but my hon. Friend makes a good point about the bravery of the people who came forward.

A predatory individual could simply seek a supervised role with a sports club that would allow them access to children and young people. They could be groomed over a long period and, once the individual had built a trusting relationship with them, they could be exploited and abused. There is evidence to show that adults who have been barred from working with children will continue to try to get access. The NSPCC has discovered that, since the definition of regulated activity was changed in 2012, more than 1,100 people who have been barred from working with children because they pose a threat have been caught applying to work in regulated activity by the DBS. I am not aware of any statistics in relation to unregulated activity.

Sports clubs can find it complex to identify which role should be classified as regulated activity and which should not, and could be at risk of committing an offence of over-checking if they decide to carry out a DBS check with barred list information on an individual in a role that does not require it. It is clear to me that that places sports clubs in a difficult position and that the definition of regulated activity needs to be amended and widened.

Another area that needs re-examining is “Positions of trust”, as defined by sections 21 and 22 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As the law stands, children are protected from being groomed into sexual relationships by trusted adults with power and influence over them. That applies to teachers, social workers and doctors, but not to sports coaches or youth leaders. That creates the absurd situation that if a physical education teacher teaching football at school engaged in sexual activity with a 16-year-old child, that would be an offence, but if the same individual in a sports coaching role did the same thing outside school, that would not be. There should be no distinction between the two, and the law needs to be changed accordingly.