Champions League Final: Paris

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady is right that we all welcome the apology we have received from UEFA. I will be speaking to the French Sports Minister and will relay the messages from this House to her when I do, hopefully as early as tomorrow.

The hon. Lady is right: while there may have been, as is unfortunately often the case with football, some small incidents of bad behaviour by a really small number of fans, the reality that we have seen and all the evidence we have heard so far would suggest that the vast majority of the fans behaved impeccably and waited patiently outside the stadium to get in, and that many then did not even make it in.

There were clearly some logistical challenges that require explanation, but we have not seen any clear justification from UEFA or the French authorities for the scenes on the ground or the limited access to the stadium for Liverpool fans. In particular, we have seen the impact on the young and the elderly of being inexplicably attacked with tear gas and unable to get to watch the games. I am also particularly concerned about reports that some of the media were asked to delete footage of incidents they observed. That also requires explanation.

The hon. Lady raises many important questions; we do not have all the answers yet, but I am confident that the investigation will be thorough and transparent, and we will be keeping a very close eye on developments.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is only because of the calmness and forbearance of Liverpool fans at the Stade de France that nobody was killed. Let us be clear about that. Does the Minister understand that the immediate resorting by UEFA and French authorities to old, baseless Hillsborough slurs—“Liverpool fans were late! They were ticketless!”—in conjunction with the disgustingly hostile policing has exacerbated trauma and brought back terrible memories for many of my constituents who have been in touch with me: both those who were caught in the crush, and those watching at home who have a connection to the Hillsborough disaster, as thousands of people in Liverpool do?

Does the Minister agree that official recognition by UEFA and the French Government of the truth of what happened, at the earliest possible moment, is essential to prevent that trauma from getting worse? Will he therefore use his good offices to insist that Liverpool fans’ representatives have a role in the official inquiries that take place, to establish the truth and to stop cover-ups?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady speaks eloquently and passionately about the human impact that incidents such as this have. This brings back some terrible memories for many people. I think UEFA does understand that. She is also right to ensure that Liverpool fans have their say here. I encourage Liverpool fans to submit information to Liverpool FC, and I thank Liverpool FC for facilitating that information-gathering, which I understand will be passed on to the UEFA investigation.

Simultaneously, the French authorities are conducting an investigation. I repeat that the inappropriate behaviour of a few fans is as nothing compared with the huge impact on thousands of people who were behaving perfectly at the event and were treated abominably.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

The Chancellor is by instinct a small state idealogue who slashes the public realm, but he prefers to claim to be a Keynesian spender who dispenses largesse to those affected by the covid crisis. But his treatment of the NHS shows us the true nature of the Chancellor’s Budget: it is sneaky. He said he wants to be honest with the public, but he substituted his previously promised 2.1% pay rise with a real-terms pay cut for our NHS heroes. He sneaked it out in the small print after he got his favourable headlines on Budget day—not exactly up front and honest.

The Chancellor said he would pay the NHS the extra costs of dealing with covid, but we read in The Times today that he is looking at ways of forcing them to pay those costs from existing budgets. NHS managers say they will have to start cutting services from 1 April to meet the £8 billion gap. There was nothing in his Budget to enable the NHS to start to treat the 4.5 million people now on waiting lists for treatment of non-covid illness; nothing to deal with the exhaustion and trauma that NHS staff, who have fought on the frontline of this pandemic, are dealing with, except a real-terms pay cut; and nothing to sort out the scandal of underfunded and unreformed social care. All this is part of the extra £4 billion in cuts in the Budget for public spending on vital services, over and above the £12 billion he had already pencilled in last November. Austerity is back for public services, not that it ever went away.

What about poorer households and low-paid workers, who are much more likely to be furloughed and much more likely to have lost their jobs or some of their income? There is not much in this Budget for them. This £30 billion fiscal tightening and the huge tax increases in this Budget hit the lower paid and poorest most. With incomes forecast to fall by 4.5% by 2025, the Chancellor has slashed help to those struggling. He is cutting the income of unemployed people by £20 a week—a 7% cut overnight, just as unemployment is forecast to reach 2.2 million when he ends furlough in September. It is a double whammy for those losing their jobs. He is forcing council tax up, hitting the poorest hardest. Many of my constituents are already finding it hard to feed themselves and their families. This Budget will make that even worse and it will remove support just when things are forecast to get even worse.

This Budget most certainly does not meet the moment. There is no plan for NHS recovery, just a plan for NHS cuts. There is no plan for helping poorer households, just a plan to impoverish them further. The covid crisis has exacerbated poverty and inequality. Far from setting the UK on a path to fix the damage, the Chancellor seems intent on making things worse.

UK Musicians: EU Visa Arrangements

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting it so simply and succinctly; that is exactly what happened. The proposals that we put forward would have allowed musicians to travel and perform in the UK and the EU more easily, and they were rejected by the EU.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]]

I have been listening to the Minister’s replies, and it is always somebody else’s fault with this Government, isn’t it? Our world-class events and production companies, such as Adlib in my constituency, tour the EU with UK and US-based musicians, but very few EU-based companies tour the UK. Does not the Minister realise that her giving up on agreeing comprehensive arrangements to enable this to continue could destroy a sector that has huge export success and destroy the jobs and livelihoods of the technicians, who are already struggling because of the pandemic restrictions to their trade?

[Caroline Dinenage]

Of course I recognise that this is not the solution that we would have wanted, and it is not the solution that we fought really hard for. I point out to the hon. Lady that the Labour party voted for this deal in the full knowledge of what it involved, including the end to freedom of movement.

Covid-19: Restrictions on Gyms and Sport

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be here with you in the chair, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing the debate and speaking in the way in which she did at the beginning of it.

Very many of my constituents—well over 4,000—have signed the petition, and hundreds also contacted me separately to ask me to be here today to put forward their concerns. We have had a difficult situation in the Liverpool City Region, because we have had a bit of hokey-cokey: open, closed, open, closed, open again next week. We need more stability for our gym businesses and to at least understand the evidence on which they have been closed so frequently.

Advice from the meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies on 21 September was that closing gyms would have a “low to moderate impact” on the spread of covid-19, and that closing gyms could lead to

“potentially increasing health inequalities for…groups that do not engage in outdoor physical activity due to safety concerns.”

We are now entering winter. It is particularly cold in here at the moment, which reminds us that it is about to get a lot colder outside, and perhaps many people who would want to exercise will not feel like doing so in the cold, the wet and the dark and in the ice and the snow. If gyms can be safely opened, we want them to be open all the way through the winter and for as long as possible thereafter while it is safe.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) said, the Government have not set out the basis on which they said gyms ought to close. My understanding from the industry is that since gyms reopened on 25 July they have had over 50 million visits, with a virus prevalence rate of 1.38 cases per 100,000, which is not bad compared to some other settings. Given the physical and mental health and wellbeing advantages of having them open, perhaps there is a balance to be struck.

At the end of the lockdown, we may be going back into the tier system and there may be more national lockdowns in the new year—we do not know yet, but that cannot be ruled out at this stage—so will the Minister say whether, if there does have to be another national lockdown, gyms will be expected to close again, or are the Government now satisfied that they are safe places and that it is worth keeping them open for their mental and physical wellbeing and health and fitness advantages? Should we be watching out yet again for gyms to close?

One thing that affects those businesses more than anything else is the uncertainty of being open, then closed, then open again and then closed again. Nobody can plan sensibly in that situation. I hope the Minister will have something to say about that. It is welcome that the Prime Minister announced—when his sound was working—that gyms are to reopen next week. Will the Minister say whether the Government are now satisfied that they are safe, even when there has to be a broader lockdown?

Finally, local councils in deprived areas are often the custodians and operators of gyms and fitness facilities, but they have had only half of the costs of covid reimbursed to them. Even though they have deprived communities with more people at risk of ill health, their financial situation means it is toughest for them to keep their gyms open. Will the Minister say what the Chancellor will do next week to ensure that leisure and sporting facilities can stay open in our most deprived areas?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Many people have asked for the data. I think I have articulated that the point is the possibility of there being a risk. As the chief medical officers and others have said, there is always a risk with any social interaction. We saw death rates go from a dozen or so a day in August to dozens a day—in fact, there are now more than 500. That is the evidence. That is why we had to take significant action.

I have always said, though, that as soon as it is possible to start lifting restrictions, grassroots sport will be among the first things to return. That has been confirmed by the Prime Minister today, as promised. I pay tribute to all the hard work carried out by sports’ governing bodies and clubs across the country to ensure that we were ready for the return of sport—from gyms, leisure centres and pools, to rowing and badminton clubs.

[Maria Eagle]

Does that imply that if there is a further national lockdown in the new year, gyms will all have to close again?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, but let us be “glass half full”, rather than “glass half empty” on this issue. We are at the point at which we are reopening sport. She and everybody knows that we have to respond to circumstances; it is ridiculous to ask a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and make promises based on future hypothetical scenarios. We will base decisions on the information at the time, but we are now in a pattern. We have the vaccination coming. I am very confident that we are looking to a much more positive future, and that is what the Government will be focused on.

I pay tribute to the hard work and effort of so many sports bodies and clubs that have made their facilities as safe as possible and minimised the risk. It has involved a huge amount of work for them at not inconsiderable cost to ensure that social distancing, improved hygiene and other measures have been implemented to increase safety and lower the risk to their members and, indeed, their staff. I thank all those who have played their part, many of whom volunteered to go the extra mile for the work that has got us this far.

Tourism: Covid-19

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman, if he has an opportunity to intervene on me.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on obtaining the debate and on how she set out her concerns. Tourism and the visitor economy are one of the main pillars of the economy and regeneration of Liverpool, my city. This has been the case especially since 2008 when it was European city of culture.

The entire city region’s visitor economy is worth more than £5 billion annually. The city region attracted 60 million visitors last year and employs more than 57,000 people. By the start of June, the lockdown and covid had cost the sector in Liverpool alone almost £1 billion, so the hon. Member is right to bring this issue to the Floor of the House. It is not only in our beautiful coastal areas that this has a major effect, so cultural tourism in Liverpool is not just a nice add-on; it is a fundamental part of the economy and the way forward in my city. To illustrate that, almost 50% of business rates revenue in Liverpool comes from the leisure, hospitality, digital, creative and culture sectors, so it is not just our beautiful seaside areas and counties where this is tremendously important.

Many aspects of this industry are likely to be the last to come out of lockdown. Even though the support that the furlough scheme has provided has been very welcome, I have still seen a doubling of unemployment in my constituency during lockdown. There are still 48,500 people furloughed in Liverpool, about one fifth of them in my constituency, and many of those jobs are at risk. They are in the visitor economy and the tourism sector and will be at risk if furlough ends.

One of my main asks of the Government is this. There are aspects of this industry that simply cannot go back to work or life as normal, such as the events industry and production, including sound and light production, which are huge in my constituency. They cannot go back to normal. The arenas and theatres are not open, and even if they do open, they cannot make money because of social distancing.

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I have been a regular visitor to her city over the years, and anyone who goes there will have a wonderful experience. The tour operator and travel agent sectors, both inbound and outbound, conform to exactly what she described. It has not only been difficult for them to conduct business. It was impossible to furlough many members of staff because they had a lot of work to do, taking calls from customers who wanted or needed to cancel bookings. Does she agree that we need to recognise the nuances and differences within the industry, while celebrating the return of visitors to many of our cities, towns and villages?

[Maria Eagle]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Some organisations would have furloughed if they did not have so much work to do, not that it was necessarily productive work, in the normal sense, that would make money for the company. He is right to identify that issue.

If I have one ask for the Government, it is not to treat these industries in a one-size-fits-all way. When furlough ends at the end of October, parts of the visitor economy and tourism sector—the things that attract people to Liverpool—will still not be able to go back to business as usual or work at all. These are fundamentally sound businesses. Our events industry is brilliant, and it will be brilliant again when social distancing has gone—it will stand on its own two feet and make money—but it will not be there if the Government do not do something beyond the end of furlough to ensure that these fundamentally sound businesses still exist.

Once gone, these businesses will not come back. Their work will simply be done by other organisations in Europe and elsewhere, and we will lose the advantage that we have in lighting and sound production for gigs and tours. That will not be there anymore, and it will not be making money for UK plc. Our visitor and tourism economy will not be able to attract the people it has done from overseas to our shores in future if those industries are not there.

Arts, Culture and Heritage: Support Package

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Yes, we are very aware of the scientific aspect of this. I have been meeting people from orchestras and choral groups frequently during this lockdown period to try to get the evidence and data we need, and actual scientific experiments are taking place, in partnership with Public Health England and others, to try to build the evidence we need on the risks presented by this terrible disease. The Secretary of State is keen to do what we can to get up and running, and he went with Andrew Lloyd Webber the other day to the Palladium to look at some of the mitigation measures it is putting in place. So we are leaving no stone unturned in trying to address this.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

I welcome the support that has been announced, but does the Minister accept that this package does not address the plight of technical production companies, such as Adlib, based in my constituency, which provides lighting and sound engineering for live performances in theatre, at music events and at festivals, but is not allowed to operate at the moment because of the law and regulations? What help can she offer to this part of the sector so that it can remain in business? It is currently reliant on the furlough scheme, but when that ends, it faces oblivion. What help can she provide it with until there can be a proper reopening of venues, without social distancing?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We have had an unprecedented package of business support since the beginning of the lockdown, but this is also about getting those venues and organisations that put on events that might require the lighting provided by the hon. Lady’s constituents up and running. That is what we mean by the road map. This is about getting places open as quickly as we can, so that people can start working with those parts of the supply chain that rely so much on a vibrant and functioning arts and culture industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Solicitor General has just said that he realises that there are concerns about virtual hearings. Can he be a bit clearer about what steps the Government are now taking to ensure that vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable defendants in particular are properly protected during this period? Beyond accepting that there is an issue, what is being done to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done in virtual proceedings?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that point, which applies, as she says, to vulnerable defendants as well as witnesses—to all participants in these proceedings. Each individual court—each tribunal—is responsible for ensuring the best possible course of action in each individual case. A virtual hearing will not be appropriate in every case. Where there are particularly vulnerable persons involved, perhaps a virtual hearing will not be appropriate, but we do not micromanage that. We ask each individual judge to have that in mind when making decisions about virtual hearings, but where they take place, we want and expect them to do so in the confines of a situation where everyone feels comfortable and able to perform the functions required of them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

Many happy returns to the hon. Member! I assure her that we are taking the issues very seriously. We will continue the dialogue and I am hopeful that we can come to a positive conclusion.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking to support the heritage and tourism sector during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

The Government are committed to our world-class heritage and tourism sectors. I and my officials are engaging across Government and are in regular weekly discussions with industry stakeholders. The Chancellor has set out an unprecedented support package for businesses and workers, including those in the heritage and tourism sectors, to help protect them in the current emergency. We have also announced a £1.3 million scheme to support destination management organisations, and both the National Lottery Heritage Fund and Historic England have announced sectoral support packages.

[Maria Eagle [V]]

Liverpool’s visitor economy brought in £3.3 billion last year, supporting 6,300 businesses and 57,000 jobs, but by June almost £1 billion will have been lost in Liverpool alone because of the lockdown. Will he undertake to push the Chancellor to extend further the business support he announced to those with a rateable value over £51,000 and to extend help to the self-employed and micro-businesses in the sector, who are falling between the cracks of the available support schemes?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the enormous economic value of the tourism industry —not only in her area, but right across the country.

I assure her that we are in regular conversations and dialogue with not only the industry but the Treasury, and those discussions will continue.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson]

I am afraid it is, but in this case there is also the issue of a broken manifesto promise. We seek to expose that today and persuade the Minister that it is not too late to change her mind on this policy.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Almost 7,000 people in my area would lose the concession, were it to go. Does my hon. Friend agree that the over £1 million of costs to pensioners would take money out of already poor pockets? It is thus a double-whammy if the Government do not stick to their manifesto commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Maria Eagle]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, even if I am a bit flummoxed as to quite whether she was giving way to me. I agree with what she has said about the BBC, so does she think it is right that 20% and rising of the BBC’s resource should in effect go towards fulfilling a Government policy on social security? It is just going to impair the BBC’s ability to make classic programmes.

[Margot James]

It is important to see the decision that was made in the wider context of the licence fee agreement that was settled in 2015. It included several plus-points for the BBC that it had not had before—I shall come to the detail of them shortly—and it raised the BBC’s income and for the first time put that income on a sustainable footing over a five-year period. In that context, the Government at the time took a reasonable position.

Football: Safe Standing

Maria Eagle Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have taken particular note of the advice that you gave at the beginning of the debate, about what can and cannot be mentioned.

I represent many members of the Hillsborough Family Support Group executive committee. That group represents the majority of the families bereaved at Hillsborough. It has recently considered this matter privately and still opposes standing at football grounds.

As has been mentioned, all-seater stadiums were one of the main recommendations—a really important one—that came out of the final report of the Taylor inquiry, which was the public inquiry designed to establish the cause of the disaster, in which 96 people were crushed to death on the terraces while standing at the Leppings Lane end of the football ground. No one has been crushed to death at a football ground that is all-seater since then in the UK.

That matters to the Hillsborough families. Safety at football grounds is one of the biggest issues for them and has been for almost 30 years. I would say that they have the most locus of anyone. They have opinions, experiences and views that deserve to be heard and taken into account in this debate. However, they cannot say what they think, and why they think it, publicly at this time, and the House will understand why. I cannot engage in the merits of the debate today and the merits of this case, because I cannot say what I think at this time as a result of the sub judice rules to which you have referred, Mr Robertson—quite properly, I might add. I do not believe it is right for the debate to be concluded and for changes to be made to the current arrangements without those affected by the Hillsborough disaster being fully consulted, their voices being heard and their views being considered.

How can it be right that those who have the most to say about this matter cannot publicly say what they think or why, while those who wish to promote the change have no such constraints on them? I do not criticise those who are campaigning for the changes that they want. I congratulate them for the effort and work they have put in, and both Front Benchers for the work that they have done. I criticise nobody. It would be wrong, however, to make changes to the rule without those who have been most affected over the last 30 years having a full say in what those changes ought to be and being able to say fully why they believe what they believe.

I know that it is frustrating for those who have been campaigning to contemplate any kind of delay, but the Hillsborough families have faced frustrations over the last twenty-nine and a half years. I promised my constituents that I would put these points in the debate. I hope that both Front Benchers, whom I commend for their receptiveness to these difficulties, will understand and act on those concerns in a way that ensures that the bereaved families of the 96 can be at the heart of the consideration of this issue, as I would say they must be.