Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

Before covid-19, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport followed a “smarter working” operating model where occasional working from home was an option. This enabled us to reduce our desk capacity to save money, and, typically, we expected about 40% of staff to be working from home, or from another location, on any given day. Since covid regulations were relaxed, staff in my Department have been returning to the office as part of a hybrid working operating model, with an expectation of some working from home. As I said, we have 800 desks for 2,000—well, 2,180—staff in our London office. The occupancy levels continue to increase, with an almost 80% occupancy on some days, but those figures are of the capacity that we have available to actually sit staff down in the Department. Due to our desk ratio, we now expect about 60% of our London-based staff to be working from home, or from another location, such as Manchester, on any given day.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

7. What discussions she has had with industry stakeholders on the Government’s proposals to privatise Channel 4.

[The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)]

The Government consulted extensively on the future of Channel 4, and the views from a broad range of industry stakeholders informed our policymaking and final decision. As a Scottish MP, the hon. Member may be particularly interested to know that I met STV and MG Alba about the broadcasting White Paper, which included the proposal to privatise Channel 4. My officials also recently met representatives from the Scotland Office and the Scottish Government. We are at a unique turning point in public service broadcasting. We think we have the chance to make Channel 4 bigger and better, while preserving what makes it so special.

[Peter Grant]

When the Secretary of State was asked by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee why she wanted to privatise Channel 4, she said that it was because it was costing the taxpayer too much in subsidies. I think she was the only person in the room who was labouring under that particular delusion. Given that that excuse has gone, is it not time to come clean and say that the Secretary of State’s mission against Channel 4 is to do not with making it a better broadcaster, but with trying to shut down a broadcaster that has a nasty habit of broadcasting the truth, in particular truths that the Secretary of State might prefer not to be made known?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I know the Secretary of State’s reasoning for this decision better than he does. He also mis-characterises what was said at the Select Committee. He will be aware that Channel 4 is uniquely dependent on linear advertising, that it cannot own its own content, and that its borrowing sits on the public balance sheet. We think we have an opportunity to free it from some of those constraints to allow it to invest more in content to get private sector capital into the business, and we think that that will help to grow Channel 4, so that it can invest more in the businesses that he purports to care about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, because we spoke about it when I visited her constituency last year. She is right that swimming is a vital life skill, as well as being very good for our physical and mental health. We have provided the sport sector with £1 billion of financial support through the pandemic, and launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund precisely to try to ensure that swimming pools stay open. Further investment through Sport England and other bodies is forthcoming. I would be happy to facilitate further discussions between my hon. Friend and Sport England.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

T2. The Minister will remember that the Government were strangely reluctant to implement a ban on the Chinese firm Huawei to prevent it from participating in the United Kingdom’s critical digital infrastructure because of the potential significant security risks. We now discover that the man who has just been appointed director of communications at No. 10 lobbied very hard against that ban. In the light of that information, will the Minister undertake to review the timeline for removing Huawei from our critical infrastructure, to ensure that Britain’s security cannot be compromised by the interests of the Prime Minister’s pals?

[Julia Lopez]

One of my first Acts as a Minister in DCMS was to take through the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021. We take these issues incredibly seriously, and I offer the hon. Gentleman reassurance that we have a whole package of work to ensure that our telecoms networks are secure. Those matters have not been influenced by other issues.

Dormant Assets Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Peter Grant Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Order. May I just point out that you must speak to the clause that we are debating at any particular time? Mr Grant, you indicated that you wished to speak.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair again, Ms Ghani. There is a saying that we would all do well to remember every day of our political lives; it is amazing what we can achieve if nobody cares who gets the credit. I do not hesitate to give credit to a Conservative Government, who I will often oppose vigorously, for improving what was already a good piece of legislation introduced by a former Labour Government.

Some 20 or 25 years ago, a young SNP councillor and local GP in my home town of Glenrothes picked up on this issue through the work she was doing with constituents and patients—in particular with the families of recently deceased patients. She started pestering all the banks and buildings societies in Glenrothes. Crucially, she started asking officials at Fife Council what they could do about it. It may be a complete coincidence that it was a Labour MP, as Chancellor and then as Prime Minister, who eventually took those concerns and sorted them out on the statute book, because it was Gordon Brown who, as Prime Minister, effectively drove this legislation through. It may be a complete coincidence; it may be that that young SNP councillor and GP had nothing to do with it, but given that I have been married to her for the best part of 40 years, Members may forgive me for saying she had part of the credit.

As I said, the 2008 Act was a good piece of legislation, and the Bill carries out welcome improvements and extensions. We have to realise that the days when most people kept most of their money in a bank account have gone. Even people who do not have significant amounts of money to their name will sometimes spread it over a number of different kinds of places. That means that if someone cannot be traced for whatever reason, it is important that any assets that they had are used for a good cause—if the original owner has no purpose for them.

Probably the biggest administrative burden in the Bill comes from the fact that we have to recognise that this money still belongs to somebody. We might not know if they are alive or dead. We might have no idea where they are. But they have to be allowed at any time to come back and reclaim what is theirs. Some of the quite complicated requirements that are put on the funds will sometimes be a nuisance to administrators of the fund, but they are important because this is not money that has been seized or forfeited due to any wrongdoing. It is money that legally and morally still belongs to someone else.

It is appropriate for Parliament to legislate to attempt to use that money for a good cause if all indications are that the person who originally owned it has no further interest in it. On that basis, I will have a few brief comments to make on particular parts of the Bill, but I welcome it and hope it will be given a speedy passage in its remaining stages.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I will briefly respond. The hon. Members make some important points about why there is such broad support for the Bill. It is because it has such a fundamental impact on improving people’s lives across the country on a day-to-day basis. It is therefore very important, and it is not surprising that it has such support.

It is good to hear from the hon. Member for Glenrothes about not only the political support, but the emotional support that exists for various reasons. He raises an important point about the Bill’s fundamental underlying principles, of reuniting and repatriating the money first and foremost to owners—the principle of always being able to reclaim the money; of course, it is a voluntary scheme and we therefore thank the participants—and of additionality. Those core principles are still pervasive throughout the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Transfer of eligible insurance proceeds to reclaim fund

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

Clauses 8 to 11 define the investment assets and participants in scope of the scheme. Clause 8 provides that an investment institution can transfer a dormant eligible amount owing by virtue of a collective scheme investment to an authorised reclaim fund. Clause 9 defines the investment assets in scope of the scheme. These are dormant proceeds of shares or units in collective scheme investments, and distributions, redemption proceeds and orphan moneys attributable to collective scheme investments. Client money is also in scope, but is covered separately in clauses 12 and 13.

Clause 10 defines dormancy for investment assets. Reflecting market practice and Financial Conduct Authority rules, this clause provides that share or unit conversion proceeds can be classed as dormant if the shareholder has been “gone-away” for 12 years. The clause defines “gone-away” broadly to accommodate a range of industry practices that are expected to evolve over time.

Clause 11 defines the right to payment that the owner of a dormant investment asset has against an authorised reclaim fund.

[Peter Grant]

I have no objection to these clauses standing part of the Bill, but will the Minister clarify one query? The Bill excludes lifetime ISAs, if their transfer would incur any kind of tax liability to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is understandable. Will the Minister explain in what kinds of circumstances that might happen? On the face of it, there appears to be an inconsistency in that a lifetime ISA might be liable to tax on transfer, when the whole assumption is that the person who owns that lifetime ISA is probably dead, although we cannot prove that for certain. Is there an inconsistency there? If not, what are the circumstances in which there might be a tax liability that would emerge from the transfer of an asset belonging to somebody when, in the eyes of the law, that person is probably dead?

[Nigel Huddleston]

There was extensive consultation on what should and should not be included. The hon. Gentleman raises the point that some assets may in the future be potentially included. We want to be careful at this stage and not include things where potential liabilities could incur. We got to this point after extensive consultation with industry, and I think we are comfortable with it. As I said to the hon. Member for Pontypridd earlier on, there is potential scope to change what assets and financial products may or may not be included, but given the advice of the industry, at the moment, we are being cautious; I think that is the appropriate approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Transfer of eligible client money to reclaim fund

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

As the Minister says, this important clause goes to the heart of the Bill and what we are trying to achieve with it, and we supports its aims. Like the Minister, I welcome the millions of pounds that could go to good causes as a result of the assets that we have just agreed, as well as those that could be agreed as a result of the clause.

Having seen the success of the scheme, we want to build on and expand it. We agree that it makes sense to give the Secretary of State or the Treasury the ability to expand the potential of the fund not by bringing back primary legislation, but by consulting—that is important—and proposing new assets to add to the scheme by regulations. We welcome the approval and the important oversight of those regulations by both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, the clause has the potential to save future generations of MPs from sitting in a future Bill Committee for another dormant assets Bill. [Laughter.]

We particularly welcome the measures as a first step towards the potential inclusion of future pension assets in the legislation. May I press the Minister a little more on that? I think the Minister agreed in principle to the inclusion of additional pension assets, but my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd asked for an indication on when those might be included, because we are keen to expand the fund appropriately. The Minister talked about a mechanism for that inclusion, but he did not want to put a commitment on the face of Bill. It would be nice to know what sort of timescale we are looking at for including future pension assets.

The clause really goes to the heart of the Bill’s purpose: how can we expand the good work the scheme has done, and what other assets can we use to benefit good causes? People have talked about all kinds of different assets that could be included in future, including foreign currency cash balances, empty properties, national savings, proceeds of crime, trust funds and lifetime ISAs, which the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned.

We are keen for all those ideas to be explored to build on the good work of the scheme, and we hope to hear in future suggestions that we have not yet discussed. We agree that the Government should be free to explore them, and we believe that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards and oversight, so we welcome this clause.

[Peter Grant]

It is important to place on the record that I—and, I hope, every Member of Parliament—have a very strong presumption against the concept of Henry VIII powers. It should be an important principle that when Parliament passes primary legislation, only Parliament should be allowed to change it by actively and positively choosing to do so.

In this particular circumstance, the proposed solution is appropriate because it is very tightly constrained. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington, pointed out, there are strict limits on the circumstances in which and the process by which the powers can be used. Just as a lot of careful drafting has had to go into the extensions to the scheme that are included in the legislation, it is important to recognise that none of us knows what kinds of financial assets people will hold in 10 or 15 years’ time. People might have significant amounts of money in assets of types that we cannot imagine. For those circumstances, secondary legislation is the more appropriate way to bring those assets in scope.

There are two fundamental requirements in the Bill that have to stay there. First, if Henry VIII are being used, the scheme must always be entirely voluntary, and secondly, the owner must always retain the absolute and indefinite right to come back and reclaim assets that are rightfully theirs. As long as those two requirements are in the Bill, I think that, on this very rare occasion, the use of Henry VIII powers is appropriate and justified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

In the light of the Reclaim Fund’s establishment as an NDPB, it is no longer appropriate for RFL’s activities to be covered by the financial services compensation scheme. Clause 28 therefore removes repayment claims from that compensation scheme and clause 27 replaces that protection with a Government guarantee in the form of a Treasury loan.

[Peter Grant]

If we take the two clauses together, it is clear why clause 28 is there. My concern is that clause 28 in isolation may be seen to be removing protection from investors. I know the answer to this question, but for the purpose of the record, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that clauses 27 and 28, taken together, do not create any circumstance in which an investor’s money would be any more at risk than it would be if it were left in the original investment. Can the Minister give that assurance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith]

I will sit down, yes. [Laughter.]

[Peter Grant]

I feel a bit of a charlatan: after debates on 28 and a half clauses, we finally come to a vote, but it is on something that, ethically, I should not vote on, because it applies to England only. I will make a couple of comments by way of friendly advice to colleagues from all sides of the House before they consider this amendment and others.

First, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned, a fixed amount of money is available to distribute, so any additional purposes can only be implemented if the existing purposes get less money. Allowing new organisations to bid for money can only mean existing organisations run the risk of less funding. That does not mean that that should not be done, but we need to understand the implications. Secondly, it is important to distinguish between the good purposes for which the funding is used and the interests of the organisations that will either deliver the services or administer the funds. Understandably, someone involved with an organisation will think that organisation is the best in the universe at doing a particular thing, but that will not always be the case; there may sometimes be circumstances where a different organisation could deliver the benefits more effectively.

As I say, I do not intend to vote on clause 29 or any of the amendments. I am quite happy now to sit back and watch my friends from England decide on the best way for England to copy the excellent practice that has been in place in Scotland and Wales for a number of years.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Members for Pontypridd and for Manchester, Withington for tabling amendment 5. I hope to be able to reassure them that the Bill, as introduced, already broadly accomplishes their desired effects, and therefore that the amendment is not necessary. I also appreciate the comments from the hon. Member for Glenrothes, who highlights that Scotland does indeed have greater flexibility at the moment. One purpose of the Bill is to rectify that, so that England can also have some flexibility in how future moneys are disbursed.

I should probably give the warning, or caveat, that while we all expect—in fact, we are very confident—that large amounts of money will be raised through the expansion of the scheme as proposed in the Bill, we of course cannot commit 100% that entities will receive a certain amount of money. We do not currently know how much will be distributed. No individual entity can bank on having a specific amount, although historically the scheme has raised more money than forecast. We cannot plan on that, but I think we are all confident that significant amounts will be raised.

I will give a brief overview of how the scheme works, in the context of amendment 5. The current system works by industry participants voluntarily transferring funds to the dormant assets reclaim fund, the body that administers the scheme, which reserves 40% of these funds in order to meet any future customer claims, with the remaining 60% of surplus then released for social and environmental purposes via the National Lottery Community Fund, the named distributor of dormant assets funding in the UK. It apportions the money among the four nations and then distributes it in line with legislation and any directions given to it by relevant Ministers or Departments.

The devolved Administrations can decide on the focus of their funding so long as it is within the parameters of social or environmental purposes, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned. In England, expenditure is ringfenced for initiatives focused on youth, financial inclusion and social investment through section 18 of the 2008 Act. Currently, funding flows from the National Lottery Community Fund to four independent specialist organisations that work across the three areas. Clause 29 introduces new section 18A to be inserted into the 2008 Act, replacing the current section 18, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd mentioned, which will enable the Secretary of State to consult on the purposes of the English portion and to then set the purposes through an order.

Amendment 5 has three core objectives: first, that there should be considered thought behind choosing the future purposes of dormant assets funding in England; secondly, that the public should be consulted before those purposes are set and should be able to have their say on the logic behind the purposes; and thirdly, that the consultation should not push progress into the long grass but must be proportionate and efficient. I understand the intent of the amendment.

Over the last decade, the scheme has been working to level up the communities that need it most,, supporting frontline organisations to tackle deprivation, developing strong social infrastructure and initiatives at local level, and directing funding to some of the most left-behind areas of the country. Those are some of the broad criteria by which the scheme has distributed funds in England. Those principles have operated successfully within the overarching three purposes set for the English portion to date: tackling youth unemployment and financial exclusion and investing in the nation’s charities and social enterprises. Part of the unique strength of the scheme in England is that the funding has been distributed through four specialist organisations. Within the boundaries of appropriate governance systems, those independent organisations have been free to determine the most impactful and appropriate ways to deliver on their missions, including deciding what criteria to apply and when. We are proud of the impact they have had, and echo the numerous supportive comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading.

The scheme has built a compelling evidence base for these types of intervention and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to benefit the people and communities who need it most. We are also committed to affording everyone a fair opportunity to have their say on the purposes for which funds can be distributed. Proposed new section 18A(6)(a) of the 2008 Act provides that the Secretary of State must consult the public about

“the purposes for which, or the kinds of person to which”

the English portion should be distributed before an order can be laid. The first of those consultations will be launched as soon as possible after Royal Assent; we estimate that it could be as early as this summer. The Government will set out our thinking in that consultation document, and we are committed to inviting all those with an interest to have their say.

In the other House, noble Friends of the Member for Manchester, Withington pressed the Government for a commitment to open the first consultation for at least 12 weeks. We agree that is a proportionate amount of time and have already committed to that. I assure hon. Members that we share the ambition to ensure that the money is released as efficiently as possible. We have no intention of delaying the impact we all want the scheme expansion to have. I am grateful for the spirit of collaboration the House has shown in helping us to achieve that ambition. For the reasons I set out we are not able to support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

New clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds and to report the assessment to Parliament annually. As we have discussed, RFL publishes its audited annual report and accounts on its website annually, and proactively raises awareness and increases transparency of its work by engaging with industry through stakeholder events and its online presence. Now that RFL is an arm’s length body, Parliament will have greater oversight of its operations and final information. RFL is now directly accountable to Parliament by virtue of its new status. As such, RFL’s chief executive officer has been designated as accounting officer.

RFL has been consolidated into HM Treasury’s accounts, which are laid before Parliament yearly. In July 2021, RFL was included in HM Treasury’s 2020-21 annual report and accounts for the first time. Furthermore, it is standard practice for the annual report and accounts of ALBs, together with any report of the auditor on them, to be laid before Parliament by the sponsor Department. That will happen for the first time this year. Therefore, Parliament will have the opportunity to review RFL’s full statutory accounts, and RFL, like all ALBs, cannot publish its accounts until they have been laid before Parliament. I therefore do not believe that there is any need for a bespoke arrangement for RFL in the Bill. I hope that that explanation demonstrates that Parliament will have greater oversight of RFL’s operations and financial information, so I ask the hon. Member for Pontypridd to withdraw the motion.

[Peter Grant]

It is no great comfort that the accounts will be assimilated into the accounts of HM Treasury because they will get lost in there. We regularly see instances where Government Departments will point to failures in a specific part of their operations that are almost invisible as a percentage of their overall expenditure but can have a significant impact on people’s lives. Any serious problem with this fund will start to have such an impact. That is why, certainly in the early days, it is reasonable for Parliament to want to be a bit more actively involved in its oversight than it would normally be for a long-established fund, particularly given that the fund has been established through an Act of Parliament for a specific purpose. I hear what the Minister says, but for a temporary period of two years, until the House can be reassured that the new arrangements are working well, something a bit more than the usual scrutiny and oversight provisions would be perfectly reasonable.

[The Chair]

Minister, you do not have to respond, but do you wish to do so?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

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

The central focus of our work in Committee has been ensuring that money trapped in dormant assets, whatever their form, can be put to good use. Such money has the power to transform the work of charities, as we have heard. I know from contributions from colleagues just how significant the impact of such funding can be on local communities and the people who benefit from it.

The new clause would give a reclaim fund the power to review the current proportion of moneys in the fund available for good causes. Labour would like as much money to be used as is safely possible, to support good causes up and down the country. The new clause would, following proper review and recommendation, give the Secretary of State the power to increase the proportion. That has the potential to increase significantly the amount of money available to support the good causes and charities up and down the UK.

[Peter Grant]

This is not made explicitly clear in the wording of the new clause, so would the hon. Member clarify whether the intention is that it would apply only in England or to the devolved Administrations as well? There is acceptance throughout the Bill that anything in the Bill that directs or indicates how money is to be apportioned applies in England and that the devolved Administrations have the autonomy to take their own decisions. The wording of the new clause as it is now would appear to change that and give the Secretary of State the right to give direction that would apply to the devolved Administrations as well. That would clearly be something that I and, I think, a lot of my colleagues would be uncomfortable with.

[Nigel Huddleston]

To allow sufficient time for my official to provide me with a direct response to the hon. Gentleman’s response, I will comment briefly on this area. I understand the intent of the proposal from the hon. Member for Pontypridd. Determining what it is prudent to release to the National Lottery Community Fund and what must be retained to meet reclaims has been intentionally separated from the processes and institutions around distributing funding, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. It is a matter for Reclaim Fund Ltd: it is responsible for determining the appropriate proportion of funding that it can prudently release. As I mentioned, it currently holds 40% of the dormant account assets that it receives and distributes 60% of the surplus funding to the National Lottery Community Fund. The amount that RFL reserves for future repayment claims is rightly based on actuarial modelling and assessment of appropriate risk factors, following guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority.

There is no reason why this should not continue, as RFL is best placed to determine what it is prudent to release, and it is only right that RFL makes its decisions independently of Government and on the advice of those with professional expertise. None the less, RFL continuously assesses and reviews its reserving policy over time to ensure that it is releasing as many funds as possible to good causes. When RFL was established, there was no historical data on which to base its model. As RFL has built its experience of handling dormant accounts, it has reviewed its reserving rate, with a view to releasing more money to good causes, which is what we all want. For example, in 2016, Reclaim Fund Ltd decreased its reclaim provision from 60% to 40%. The fundamental principle that underpins RFL’s current approach to its reserving rate is that it is required to meet reclaims in perpetuity and therefore has to account for any future stress scenarios that may occur and model those accordingly.

The Government agree that as many dormant funds as possible should be channelled onwards to good causes, but this amendment would perhaps set an unhelpful precedent and risk the scheme’s reputation. Industry stakeholders might be less willing to voluntarily participate if they felt that RFL’s reserving policy was unduly influenced, so there would be a risk to the scheme’s continuation should the Government encroach on RFL’s operational independence by having the power to decide what portion of funding it should release.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, the amendment as drafted would have an impact on the UK as a whole. RFL releases all surplus funds to the National Lottery Community Fund, and only then is it apportioned. However, it would not change the proportion contributed to each nation, which is, I think, what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. Hopefully that explanation provides him with reassurance. As I said, RFL has reviewed and will continue to review its reserving policy on a regular basis, to ensure that it is fit for purpose. In fact, RFL is currently undertaking a review of its reserving policy, also known as the reclaim—

[Peter Grant]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It seems to me that he is responding to a different new clause from the one that has been introduced. My reading of the proposed new clause is that it is about decisions as to how the available distribution money is distributed to particular good causes. The Minister is talking about the decision as to how much of the total fund can be made available. That to me would seem to be a professional judgment matter and not a matter for the Secretary of State. Can he perhaps clarify what the actual meaning of this new clause is? I do not think the new clause says anything about how much should be reserved to cover any reclaims. I think it is about deciding how the available money is allocated across individual causes or, potentially, across individual organisations.

[The Chair]

Mr Grant, I do not think the Minister’s response was out of order. He may not be responding to the point that you raised, but I do not think he was not speaking on the new clause. Minister, would you like to clarify the matter?

Independent Fan-led Review of Football Governance

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that piece of trivia—we learn something new every day. He is right that the flow of football finance is pivotal and it is important for the ecosystem that the grassroots succeed as well. We have already seen some changes and movement from the top tiers to grassroots and lower tiers, and the message today is that we would like to see more. Through the arm’s length bodies of Government and indeed football itself, we want to see more money flowing through to the all-important grassroots levels.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Some premier league footballers get paid more for a single match than the entire balance sheet value of clubs such as my local constituency team of East Fife. That indicates the gulf in resources. Can I press the Minister on what action he intends to take to prevent entirely unsuitable individuals or organisations from swallowing up more and more football clubs? Does he agree that it is too important to be left purely to self-regulation? Does he agree that it is time for legislation to prevent people who are unfit to be given a licence to run a pub from taking over football clubs in England, Scotland or anywhere else?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is right that the future regulatory environment needs to look at a whole host of things. We will therefore consider the powers, responsibilities and resources of any regulator. He is also right that—I have said this before, and it is clear in the report—we cannot divorce financial flows from governance. The financial flows within sport, including purchasing and acquisition, are an important part, and we will respond in detail in due course.

Events Research Programme

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a hugely important part of our economy. Many have been able to access some—but, admittedly, not all—of the support programmes offered by the Government. There are additional discretionary schemes available through local government for some of the smaller suppliers. In particular, as I have mentioned previously in the House, we want the events supply chain to benefit from the additional restrictions grants; I appealed to local authorities to be very generous with such applicants.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

I think that everybody who organises these events understands that during a pandemic there can be unforeseen circumstances beyond anyone’s control that mean an event has to be cancelled or significantly reduced. However, the uncertainty about event insurance underwritten by the Government is due entirely to the Government’s refusal to answer the question already asked numerous times this afternoon. When should the events sector expect to know whether Government support for covid cancellation insurance will ever be forthcoming?

Gambling and Lotteries

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, without wishing to be pedantic, there is often a debate about whether loot boxes and games of chance, or those where there is not a financial benefit at the end, are actually “gambling” or “gambling-like behaviours”. However we wish to define them, we are taking action. That is why it was important that we had the call for evidence on loot boxes, which was completed recently, and further action will be taken, on recommendations, by the Government.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

Every year, the gambling industry spends £1.5 billion on advertising to encourage us all to gamble more, which is 25 times more than we spend giving help to people with a problem with their gambling and 80 times more than it is required to give to the Gambling Commission, which is supposed to regulate it. The commission will never be able to regulate the industry properly when it relies for its funding on these tiny scraps that fall from the industry’s table. Will the Minister therefore agree to look seriously at having the Gambling Commission adequately and directly funded from the public purse, so that it is independent and, more importantly, can be seen to be independent of the industry it is attempting to regulate?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority both currently have a role in reviewing advertising relating to gambling, and they have significant powers. However, many legitimate concerns have been raised on this issue, so both the advertising and the scope and resources of the Gambling Commission will be part of this review.

UK Telecommunications

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of cyber-attacks. I caution, though, that cyber-attacks will not be prevented by removing Huawei equipment from the system. There are vulnerabilities across the network, and indeed one reason that we are introducing the telecoms security Bill is to start to address some of those. We have seen—it is in the public domain—that hostile Russian actors, for example, have already been able to attack our networks. With regard to the wider position on China, we need to have a full and frank relationship with China, and we have done that, but this announcement is principally about the US sanctions.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]]

No matter how hard the Secretary of State tries to disguise it, this is a humiliating U-turn by a Government being forced to admit that they got it wrong in January. What assessment has been made of the additional damage to the economy, the additional cost to public finances in the UK, and the additional cost to devolved nations of the UK, of this Government taking the decision today that everyone knows they should have taken six months ago?

[Oliver Dowden]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot simultaneously urge us to take a faster course, which the SNP did previously, and attack us for the consequence of that in terms of cost. One thing leads to the other.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the priorities for his Office.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the priorities for his Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Attorney General]

I have already said to the House that in future, on matters of law that are particularly relevant to the House’s consideration, I and the Government will consider releasing advice that has been given on these questions. I will not give any guarantee in advance, but let me make it plain that I shall listen carefully to the House and, in so far as it is needed, I will endeavour to satisfy Members.

[Peter Grant]

One of the matters that the Attorney General decided was a priority was to launch a case in the Supreme Court challenging the legal competence of the Scottish Parliament, which has just passed the Continuity Bill. Not only did the Government delay that by taking that action but they then mounted a retrospective power grab through the unelected House of Lords to remove from the elected Parliament of Scotland the power to pass legislation that it had already passed. What was the cost to the taxpayers of the United Kingdom of that Supreme Court case?

[The Attorney General]

The Government won that case, as the hon. Gentleman quite knows. The truth is that it has gone back to the Scottish Parliament, and the system is working. It is the purpose of the referral system to delineate and demarcate the proper boundaries between the devolved Governments and Westminster. That is what the Supreme Court decided. As to the cost, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to do so.

BBC Pay

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have brought in stronger laws to ensure that there is transparency, not only at the BBC through the royal charter but statutorily for all large organisations. We have taken action in this area because it is very important to get to the bottom of it.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Gender pay discrimination is partly a symptom of a much wider problem of sexist attitudes that prevail in too many large organisations. May I remind the Secretary of State that it is less than 24 hours since a colleague of his at the Dispatch Box defended the appointment of Toby Young as universities regulator for England, and less than two hours since another colleague at the Dispatch Box defended the offer of a state visit to Donald Trump? While I would agree with a lot of the Secretary of State’s criticisms of the BBC, will he not accept that if the Government are going to throw stones at the BBC, they should get out of the glass house they are in and stop rewarding such blatant and horrific examples of sexist behaviour elsewhere?

[Matt Hancock]

As I say, tackling the sort of unequal pay that we have seen at the BBC is very important. That is why we brought in the measures that we did, which I took through Parliament as the Bill Minister and which we are very proud to have brought in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

Across the United Kingdom, the volume of cases and convictions is going up all the time. It is important that we recognise that the volume of cases reflects a genuine problem—a problem not just of terrorist acts, but of those who encourage or glorify terrorism. We must make sure the law keeps pace with that in terms of substantive offences and the sentencing regime.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Following on from that answer, has the Attorney General seen the content published online yesterday by the Leave.EU campaign, in which a number of his hon. and right hon. colleagues were denounced as traitors and as a cancer, simply because they disagreed with the views held by the billionaire owner of that company? Will the Government consider amending legislation so that such clear incitements to hatred can be prosecuted through the criminal courts?

[The Attorney General]

I agree that incitement to hatred is reprehensible, from wherever it comes and whatever subject it is based on, and it is important that the criminal law is available to deal with that conduct. The hon. Gentleman is right too—he has heard me say this before—that conduct online should be treated no less seriously than conduct offline. No one should imagine that they are immune from the criminal law if what they are doing is online instead of in what we might call the real world.