(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I shall call Johanna Baxter to move the motion. I shall then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members that if they wish to speak in a 30-minute debate—only one has requested to do so—they must have the consent of the Member in the charge and the Minister. For the record, I should have been notified as well, and I was not told of anybody wishing to take part in the debate. Members can, of course, intervene, but remember that this is a 15-minute each way debate, basically. There is no opportunity for the mover of the debate to wind up at the end.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a permanent national monument for Sir David Attenborough.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Last month marked the 100th birthday of a television icon, a broadcasting legend and a true national treasure: Sir David Attenborough. Across his 70 years in television, Sir David has inspired generations to care more deeply about our natural world. A staple of Sunday evening viewing for decades, he has enthralled and inspired us in a way that no other broadcaster ever has or arguably could.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger, and an absolute pleasure to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), who made a fantastic speech. She was exactly the right person to make it: no one in this place is more of a Sir David Attenborough superfan than she is. To confirm that, all anyone need do is to look at her Twitter history, her bookshelf or her DVD collection. I cannot hope to match her wonderful, in-depth speech, so I will just take a minute or two to make a couple of points.
The UK has a long tradition and a long history of recognising those who make a great contribution to public life. If there were no curtains on the windows of this Chamber, we would be able to see some of those figures outside. There are 12 statues in Parliament Square of some outstanding people who have made massive contributions to our national life, like Millicent Fawcett with the Suffragettes, Winston Churchill, who needs no explanation, and Nelson Mandela, whose achievements likewise need no explanation.
I believe that Sir David Attenborough fits within that bracket. In his centenary year, we should be thinking, “How do we honour and recognise that?” He has made an unbelievable, perhaps irreplaceable contribution to the way we think about animals and the natural world. He has given us a greater understanding—one that we did not have before. As I say, he is irreplaceable.
Sir David has encouraged us all to play our part in stewarding the natural environment. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, there are estates run by the Northumberland Wildlife Trust, which is creating one of England’s largest areas for nature. I encourage people to get behind the trust’s campaign, for which it is fundraising right now.
I am delighted to be partnering with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South on this project, and I look forward to making it a success. I urge everyone across the House and across society, including the Government, to get behind this campaign to ensure that ultimately we can create a lasting and permanent memorial to Sir David Attenborough as our national treasure.
I remind hon. Members that a vote is expected at 4.30 pm.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. In fact, with you in the Chair we are talking about two national treasures in this debate.
Your words, not mine, Sir Roger.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing a wonderful debate and making a lovely speech. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) says that she is the No. 1 Sir David Attenborough fangirl and, having known her for many years, I know that to be the case. These green Benches are her natural environment, as Sir David would say; she certainly deserves to be there.
Last month, of course, Sir David Attenborough had his 100th birthday—a very happy birthday to him. Alongside his 100th birthday, this year he celebrates a 70-year career as an award-winning wildlife filmmaker and broadcaster, a true national treasure and a pioneer. Sir David has been one of the most influential figures in British broadcasting and natural history storytelling, inspiring and educating generations across the world. I would like to take the opportunity to reflect on some of his contributions to British broadcasting, to telling that story and to environmental education.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South says, when we look at the career of Sir David Attenborough, we are looking at the history of modern broadcasting itself. He did not just witness the evolution of the media; he helped to shape it. As the controller of BBC2 in the 1960s, he spearheaded the introduction of regular colour broadcasts to British TV screens, and when he moved from management into production he created numerous documentaries that have captivated hundreds of millions of viewers worldwide and continue to do so. They include the groundbreaking “Life on Earth”, “Blue Planet” and most recently “Wild London”; “Wild Paisley” might be next. These contributions have helped to make the BBC the cornerstone of British broadcasting and the national institution for the public good that we know today.
Sir David’s long and successful career with the BBC is also a testament to the opportunities that the BBC provides to build careers from the early stages upward. He kick-started his career as a trainee producer at the BBC in 1952: he began by producing and presenting factual programmes, before moving through the ranks to become a senior manager and ultimately a leading television presenter and a national treasure. His career highlights the importance of the BBC and our public service broadcasters in nurturing outstanding talent in Britain and the creative sectors.
Beyond broadcasting, Sir David has had a hugely positive impact on public consciousness of nature and the urgency of climate change, as we have heard. As the climate crisis has grown, Sir David has helped people to see that the natural world is not just a matter of curiosity, but something that we must protect and secure for this generation and many to come. He has told us all that we are merely custodians of this planet, and that we need to treat it accordingly. He has educated and mobilised support and action from around the world, showing how we can work together to protect the planet while inspiring positive change.
Sir David’s contribution illuminates the pivotal role of the BBC as a light on the hill, producing and distributing educational content that protects the truth. Fact and the truth are critical for building a shared understanding of the world, and public service broadcasting is essential in arming us with the information that supports civilised debate. Sir David is truly the voice of this nation.
We must also recognise Sir David’s contribution as an innovative storyteller, and the BBC’s global reach as a potent example of British soft power. Sir David’s numerous contributions to the BBC have projected the core British value of integrity through scientific inquiry, promoting a truthful agenda and a passion for environmental stewardship to hundreds of millions of screens across the globe. That has served as an important part of British cultural diplomacy and has demonstrated our commitment to bringing people together to create positive change through truthful and impactful storytelling.
I turn to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South about commemoration. This country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating national and local individuals through statues, memorials and monuments, which can serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and can help to bridge the gap between the past and the present.
As my hon. Friend will know, the Government do not routinely fund such monuments and memorials, but there is a long history of monuments and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach wholeheartedly. For example, I am delighted to highlight the iconic bronze statue of Eric Morecambe, funded by public donations, corporate sponsorship and national lottery grants, in his hometown of Morecambe in Lancashire; a bronze bust of Sir Bruce Forsyth at the London Palladium, privately created and gifted to mark his 60th year in show business; and the statue of Sir Terry Wogan, no less, funded by Limerick city and county council, although much loved by audiences here in the United Kingdom.
Experience has shown that investors, including those from the private sector, are often happy and very willing to fund new monuments. Many public and private organisations are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials and monuments marking various incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive in the areas that they should be in. Many successful monuments are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations that are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate, and are often driven by fanboys and fangirls.
This debate is welcome because of the positive lasting impact that Sir David Attenborough has made and will continue to make on British broadcasting and natural history. We acknowledge that, and I thank Sir David for his continued dedication to wildlife broadcasting, environmental education and addressing the urgency of the climate crisis. He has helped to shape our understanding of the natural world and tell our national story.
Ultimately, the true legacy of Sir David Attenborough cannot be measured solely by the decades he has spent on our screens, but by the light that he has shed on the natural world around us, the environmental issues that he has championed and the dedication that he has given to outstanding British broadcasting. He has inspired more than one generation. Sir David’s work serves and will continue to serve as a blueprint for the importance of high-quality British television, broadcasting and storytelling.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and the hon. Members who have contributed. In Sir David’s own words:
“Is this how our story is due to end?”
I very much doubt it.
At the risk of editorialising from the Chair, may I say that, on the mere 43rd anniversary of my election to this House, it is a real pleasure to be able to put this motion to the Chamber?
Question put and agreed to.
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Order. It is obvious that a large number of Members wish to participate in the debate; time is going to be very short. Before we embark on the inevitable round of interventions, which are perfectly permitted, I remind hon. Members who intervene that they are expected to remain for the whole debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. Could colleagues who wish to speak please remain standing while the Clerk ticks off the names? I do not normally do this from the Chair, but 10 Members have put forward their names in advance; I propose to call them first. In order, on the Opposition Benches they are Peter Bedford, Danny Kruger, John Cooper, Wera Hobhouse, John Glen and Jim Shannon. On the Government Benches they are Brian Leishman, Patrick Hurley and Terry Jermy.
I am going to put a time limit of three minutes on each speech; that should take us—allowing for interventions—to just past quarter past 3. We have to call the Front Benchers at 3.30 pm, so there should be a little wriggle room at the end for anybody who was not on that list and wishes to speak. Otherwise, your card is marked, so intervene. I will also not allow interventions from anybody who arrived after the start of the debate.
Order. I am terribly sorry; I appreciate that there are conflicting demands on Members, but the hon. Lady must be aware that if a Member comes in late, it is quite straightforward: no intervention.
Liz Jarvis
Decades of real-terms funding cuts, a cost of living squeeze on donations, rising operating costs, and the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions without exempting the charitable sector have piled pressure on organisations that are already struggling.
Small charities account for the overwhelming majority of the sector by number. Micro and small charities are defined as those with incomes under £10,000 and between £10,000 and £100,000 respectively, and they make up over 80% of all registered charities. Charities with incomes under £1 million represent 96% of the entire sector. By contrast, the UK’s largest charities—those with incomes over £10 million—make up less than 1% of the sector by number, yet account for the majority of total income.
Given the vital community work that small charities carry out, it is concerning that the majority of donations are given to bigger rather than smaller charities, which do not have the resources and superior brand recognition of bigger organisations. Small local charities do not have the financial runway and resilience built into their operations to weather storms.
The demand for charitable services is rising sharply, with the proportion of people receiving food, medical or financial support from charities having tripled in five years. However, around 42% of charities spent more than they received, and well over half are now running deficits. More charities are closing, and most of those closures are among organisations with incomes below £1 million. Nearly a third of voluntary organisations now describe themselves as vulnerable or struggling. Many expect to freeze recruitment and make redundancies as a direct consequence of financial pressure.
I urge the Minister to reduce the financial burden faced by small charities. What more can be done to supercharge philanthropy across the UK? How can we unlock billions in unclaimed gift aid and dormant funds and explore match-funding mechanisms, which can significantly increase donations? We should ensure that small and medium-sized charities can engage meaningfully in tenders, grant applications and policy consultations, rather than being crowded out by larger organisations.
Small veterans charities, including Veterans Dementia Support UK in my constituency, are not immune to the challenges facing the sector. The CEO of Veterans Aid has warned that if these specialist organisations disappear, the Government will lose the very partners they depend on to keep veterans from falling into crisis. I hope the Minister will reflect carefully on that.
The fact is that more charities are closing at a time when increasing numbers of people depend on their services. If we continue on this course, we risk losing an essential pillar of the social fabric that holds our communities together. It is absolutely crucial to ensure that small charities are supported in the UK. They are embedded in their local communities and are often their beneficiaries’ only lifeline. The Government must take all necessary steps to ensure they can maximise their impact for the people and communities who depend on them.
This is such an important debate. I want to pick up on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Although it is obviously very helpful if small charities, which do not have financial resources or indeed necessarily the right data, can demonstrate their value to the public sector, let us not build systems that force charities into a model that really works only for public sector agencies or large charities. The whole value of these small projects is that they do not have those clear processes, outputs and data, with everything being reduced to unit costs. We have to have a system that actually honours the way that charities work, rather than trying to force them into some kind of proxy of that quantitative model for demonstrating value. Why do we not just localise public sector funding so that small charities can be properly trusted?
Order. Colleagues will have noticed that I have deliberately allowed the Minister to overrun her time because, given the time, it seemed important that she was able to respond fully to the debate. I now have to remind the Minister that I want the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate to have time to wind up properly.
I take that point, Sir Roger, and I heard what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said.
I will end where the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green began. He spoke about how the Government, families and community groups can work together, and are best placed, alongside small charities, to support local areas and to tackle challenges. He said that the ones that do the most, we often hear the least about. I think this debate has gone some way to changing that by shining a light on so many brilliant examples of hard working charities across our country. I conclude by acknowledging the huge contribution that small charities make, and I thank them for all their work.
(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend will have heard the comments that I made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes). I commend those many BBC staff, particularly those who put themselves in danger to report fearlessly from parts of the world where that is not possible. Recently, I came to this Dispatch Box to pay tribute to all those journalists, operating in Gaza in particular, where the loss of life has been without precedent. We owe them a great debt of thanks and I would like to place that on the record today.
It is a very long time since I was taught to edit tape with a chinagraph pencil and a razor blade, but the fundamental principle remains the same: you do not change the sense of what somebody has said—ever. Those who have read the transcript of Trump’s speech and then compared it with the “Panorama” edit know full well that that programme was a travesty of journalism and deeply dishonest. It also represented a desperate lack of editorial control.
I now part company with some of my colleagues; I believe, and I still believe, that the overwhelming majority of journalists employed by the BBC—and, for the record, those employed by Independent Television and Sky News—work fearlessly, faithfully and honestly to deliver the truth, and, when it comes to those working overseas, as has been said, with great courage also. I therefore hope the Secretary of State will resist with all her power the calls of those on both sides of this House and outside it who would seek to destroy one of the jewels in our national crown.
I am happy to give the right hon. Member that assurance.
(8 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUrgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Discovery Park in my constituency at Sandwich is the phoenix that rose from the ashes of Pfizer. It is now a cluster of over 100 enterprising and successful small companies in the life sciences field. The loss of cornerstones such as AstraZeneca and MSD could have a devastating effect upon the architecture of the pharmaceutical industry in this country. What are the Government going to do, practically, to reverse the decline in confidence in that industry?
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, that in the first part of his question he quite rightly promotes the wonderful work that is going on in his constituency at the Discovery Park and then says that everything is doom and gloom. That is not the case. This Government are investing in research and development to the tune of £86 billion, we are investing in the life sciences—it is one of the eight key sectors in the industrial strategy—and I hope that the business park in his constituency benefits fundamentally from that. I merely repeat that MSD is not leaving the UK. It will still employ 1,600 people here and be the cornerstone of research in this country.
(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberLet me explain, for the benefit of Members who were not in the room at the start of the debate, that the discussion was about the fact that the gentleman in question said in the Select Committee that he was not approached by the then Minister, but by civil servants. The Secretary of State is trying to say now that her Department is not under investigation. Is that correct? Are you under investigation for this appointment?
Order. First, I am not. Secondly, the Secretary of State came very close to unparliamentary language in accusing another hon. Member of hypocrisy; I am sure she did not intend that.
Out of respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to clarify. I think that the shadow Minister might be a bit confused. To add to the confusion, I refer him to a point made strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) about the way in which the shadow Minister has made an astonishing about-turn; having called for stronger regulation, he now calls for weaker regulation. [Interruption.] If he does not want to listen to my words, perhaps I can let him listen to his own:
“Following years of misery and uncertainty for fans…I welcome the news on an independent football regulator. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the regulator will have sufficient powers to deal with regulatory breaches and strengthen those ownership tests?”—[Official Report, 23 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 343.]
Well, I preferred his earlier work. Let me say that although the shadow Secretary of State no longer backs his own Bill and will not act, this Government will.
Let me turn to something that is very close to my heart: the experiences that were given voice by many Members today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Dartford and for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who has been a tireless champion for Reading through very difficult times. She said, “Let Reading be the last”, and she is absolutely right. In the years that football fans have waited for this piece of legislation to come on to the statute book and for the promise from all those years ago to be made good, too many people have experienced the hell that she and so many others have been through.
It is only fitting that I finish with a reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), who has been tireless in her defence of her club and her town. I had the privilege of going to Morecambe to meet the Shrimps and the board, which she rightly referenced and which has done so much for the club. She outlined the impact more powerfully than any of us could, as well as the strength of feeling about owners who refuse to sell their clubs even when the impact of that would be to bring those proud clubs to the verge of collapse. It has been a privilege to work closely with her, although I wish it had been on something more positive, as I know she does.
I want to make it clear from this Dispatch Box that this Government take a very dim view of owners who treat our clubs as playthings, rather than as the custodians that they are. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and all the Members of this House—or most of the Members of this House—for a constructive debate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Order. Having lowered the temperature, I trust that I can now rely on the shadow Minister to maintain the lowered temperature. If not, I might have to intervene.
With leave of the House, it is my pleasure to sum up this Report stage. We have heard today that there is common ground on many of the issues facing football, but as I highlighted in my opening speech, we disagree on the solutions. This is a Government who are currently under investigation for appointing a Labour crony to chair an independent football regulator. They may not like it, but that is the reality. Our amendment 18 seeks to end the politicisation of such roles and to ensure transparency on future appointments. We believe strongly that no Member would vote this measure down, given that it seeks to end cronyism over clubs and favours over fans.
New clause 1 would deal with alcohol at football grounds, as we have heard in the debate, and we have support from the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) and from the Liberal Democrats. We believe this ban is outdated. Football fans should not be treated with a two-tier approach when it comes to being able to drink in the stands. We will be pressing this new clause to a Division because we on the Opposition Benches are on the side of football fans. We do not want this nanny state approach to continue; we want to make sure that football fans are treated with the respect that they deserve, and we will see tonight whose side this Government are really on.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberI thank my hon. Friend for raising this very serious issue. He will know that since the Leveson inquiry concluded, there have been dramatic changes in the media landscape, meaning that we need to take a much wider view of how to protect a free, fair and self- regulated press and to protect the public. Nevertheless, we recognise that there are long-standing issues with the protection of members of the public such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, who the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism knows well. I recently met families from the campaign group Hacked Off and listened to their stories. It was a harrowing meeting, and we are committed to working with them to resolve these issues.
I should properly declare an interest as a former member of the British Actors’ Equity Association. Mr Speaker, if I enter your house and steal the draft manuscript of your memoirs, I am guilty of a crime. Artists, writers, musicians and other creatives are all having their work stolen as we speak, and you and I have received letters about this issue. We do not have the time to wait; what are the Government going to do to protect creatives and their work?
Copyright law stands firmly behind the creative industries today, and will in the future. We will do absolutely nothing to undermine the fact that this country is one of the few great countries in the world that is able to boast of itself as a content superpower, and anything we do in relation to artificial intelligence and copyright will proceed only if we can make sure that the creative industries have more control and more remuneration at the end of that process, rather than less.
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joe Robertson
I agree. Ultimately, the Government should exempt all charities from national insurance contribution rises. Another possibility, which would be much less beneficial, would be to target the exemption at health and social care provider charities, without which the NHS could not function, but I ask the Minister to expand the exemption to all charities, not just those in health and social care.
Shooting Star and Demelza House are two children’s cancer hospice charities that make a significant contribution to the national health service. Is it not absolutely ludicrous that money given for charitable purposes should effectively be siphoned off to the Treasury instead of being used to provide the support to children and their families for which it is intended?
Joe Robertson
I agree: of course it is ludicrous. This is charitable money—most of it is charitable donations—that is given to charities to provide valuable work, and the Treasury is taking it and putting it into the Government’s coffers. Some of these charities, such as those in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, are small charities doing valuable work and are the least able to afford to give money over to the national Government. It is therefore unsurprising that 7,000 charities have signed an open letter to the Chancellor. This is about not just the increase in national insurance contributions but the timing of it and the combination of factors.
I did not catch all of that intervention, but I said that half of charities would either stay the same or gain from the changes. I am happy to discuss that with the hon. Member after the debate, or write to him if I have misunderstood his point.
I have met representatives from the sector to specifically discuss the NI changes on more than one occasion. They have put forward many of the same arguments and questions that hon. Members have today, and I have shared those in turn with the Treasury.
A number of specific causes and sectors have been raised during the debate, and I would like to address some of those in the time available. Individual Departments will continue to provide direct funding and support for specific causes and areas. As has been mentioned a number of times, most hospices are charitable, independent organisations. As announced by the Department of Health and Social Care, the sector is set to receive a £100 million boost, alongside a further £26 million for children and young people’s hospices. Clearly, that will help with financial pressures. That sits alongside some of the other actions taken by the Government, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant and an additional £233 million of funding on homelessness, to help prevent rises in the number of families in temporary accommodation and to prevent rough sleeping.
The Home Office is working to agree decisions on its wider budget in support of the ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and it will communicate that as soon as possible. To answer the point made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), I have a cross-Government meeting on violence against women tomorrow morning.
I am sorry to intrude on the Minister’s time. As I understand it, the extension of the children’s hospices grant will not meet the costs of national insurance for children’s hospices. Will she ask the Treasury to clarify that, and if necessary, discuss it with the executives of the children’s hospice movement?
I know the huge amount of work that children’s hospices do, and I have done a lot of work with Bluebell Wood children’s hospice in South Yorkshire. I will take away and reflect the right hon. Member’s points, and the relevant Department will write to him after the debate.
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons Chamber
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. So as to accommodate everybody, I am going to have to reduce the time limit, after the next speaker, to six minutes. I call Charlotte Nichols.
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. I make no criticism of the fact that Members are using the time made available to them, but we will have to reduce the time limit again I am afraid. After the next speaker it will go down to five minutes.
I am very pleased to finally be able to speak in today’s historic debate. A new independent football regulator is an important development, coming as a result of dysfunction in the game. I thank those who have worked hard to improve how football functions, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) for producing the fan-led review, the Football Supporters’ Association and Fair Game. I thank Luton Town’s chief executive, Gary Sweet, for sharing his views on a number of occasions and, importantly, I thank members of Luton Town Supporters’ Trust and Loyal Luton, who have always been willing to meet me and tell me their views, because ultimately football is about the fans.
However, the status quo is failing fans across the country. While the premier league is arguably the most globally popular and commercially successful sporting competition, more than 60 clubs throughout the English league system have gone bust since it was established in 1992. The financial power at the top of the English game has distorted competition and powered unsustainable business practices as clubs scramble to be one of the elite 20 clubs at all costs. We all agree that the future sustainability of the pyramid is heavily reliant on securing a fair financial distribution deal between the Premier League and the pyramid system, not to mention preventing any potential re-emergence of the European super league plan.
We also have a multitude of examples that demonstrate the owners and directors test has not stopped dubious owners buying clubs and running them into the ground. We Lutonians sadly know the ugly side of the beautiful game better than most. Back in 2003, in response to Luton fans wanting to save their club, the previous Luton Town chairman, John Gurney, disgracefully said:
“If they expect me to walk away from Luton with nothing, I’ll make very sure there’s nothing to walk away from”.
This was from a person who had already recklessly suggested renaming the club, pushing for a merger with Milton Keynes-bound Wimbledon FC and, wait for it, attaching a Formula 1 circuit to a new 70,000-seat stadium on stilts. My personal favourite, which did see the light of day, was suggesting selecting the club’s next manager through “manager idol”, with texts costing 50p. That was all in the face of clear and vocal opposition from the fans. Thankfully, due to the work of a group of fans creating Trust in Luton, including one of its founding members, Gary Sweet, who is now Luton Town chief executive, control of the club was wrestled away from that disastrous ownership.
However, that was not the last time that fans had to step up to protect the club, as the fan-led 2020 consortium bought them out from yet further mismanagement after they went into administrative receivership in 2007. Unfortunately, the previous mismanagement led to a huge 30-point deduction and ultimately relegation to the national league. While it has not always been plain sailing, successes on and off the pitch since have enabled Luton Town now to compete at the pinnacle of English football—from non-league to the premier league. How did Luton Town do it? They ensured that they were a unified club from top to bottom, with a clear vision rooted in our Luton community.
Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may, I will take the opportunity to celebrate a significant part of our Luton football heritage through the period by wishing Alison Taylor, the landlady of the Bricklayers Arms, a well-earned and relaxing retirement at the end of the season after 38 years of service.
I fully support the creation of the new independent football regulator to protect and promote the sustainability of English football, and particularly to safeguard the traditional features that matter most to fans and communities. I will put on the record a few initial concerns with the functioning of the regulator, as set out in the Bill. First, the regulator will have the backstop power to intervene in the distribution of broadcasting revenue between the Premier League and the wider pyramid if needed. It is important that we explore that to ensure that the regulator can facilitate a just and fair financial distribution deal, including parachute payments, and including the ability to initiate any regulation.
The regulatory principles in clause 8(b) do not make reference to fans or fan groups—or indeed players or employees—as groups that the regulator should proactively and constructively engage with. When I worked for a regulator in the health sector, we directly engaged with patients, so why would the regulator not directly engage with fans, who are the beneficiaries of football? I also have reservations about whether the Bill is sufficiently free from any vested interests. Further clarity may be needed to ensure that a person with a conflict of interest cannot be on the expert panel board.
The Bill is supported by so many of us on both sides of the House, and this is a historic moment. The game is not just a business, but one with deep roots in the nation’s identity and communities, which is central to our global appeal. I look forward to supporting the Opposition Front-Bench team in taking the Bill forward.
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberThank you. Consideration is complete. [Interruption.] I understand that King’s consent will need to be signified for Third Reading.
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can we move on to the next business, please?
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At what point can we make speeches on the Bill?
Once the Third Reading debate has commenced.
Third Reading
King’s consent signified.
The reality is that there are 10,000 animals of various species in the zoo. I suspect I would try your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, were I to list all of them, but I will talk about some of them.
Jumbo the elephant is believed to have been born in 1861. He arrived at the Jardin des Plantes zoo in Paris when he was still very small, and in 1865 he was sent to London zoo. On arrival there, he was in a dreadful condition, but after he was placed in the care of Matthew Scott, a former antelope keeper, Jumbo flourished. He was so famous, he has had a lasting impact on the English language, helping to make “jumbo” a synonym for big. A female African elephant, Alice, arrived a few months after Jumbo, and the two elephants became associated in the public mind. Jumbo was soon trained to give rides and became a great favourite, largely because he had such a good nature. By the early 1880s, he was nearly 11 feet tall. Sadly, Jumbo was killed in a railway accident in Canada in 1885.
Order. I do not wish to appear churlish, and the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that I have a personal interest in these matters, but it would be helpful if he were to relate the catalogue to the reasons for extending the lease.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take your remark into account.
The reality is that among the well over 10,000 animals at the zoo are many endangered species that could not be preserved were the zoo to cease operating. If we do not extend the lease, the zoo will not continue. Endangered species there include the Annam leaf turtle, the Asiatic lion, the Lake Oku clawed frog, the mountain chicken, the northern white-cheeked gibbon, the Philippine crocodile, the ring-tailed lemur, the Sumatran tiger, of which there are only 400 left in the world, the Waldrapp ibis, various species of gorilla, all of which are endangered, the white-naped mangabey, the Chinese giant salamander, and finally pangolins.
Order. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct to say that that goes slightly wider than the scope of the Bill under discussion. I take his point, but that is perhaps a matter for another day.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your guidance. I agree with my hon. Friend that that could and should be potentially negotiated. That is, of course, a matter for discussion with the Crown Estate. It may well be that, following the general election and a new Parliament, we might consider taking that forward in a future Bill and a future debate, but for today the debate is about the extension of the lease.
From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions dentistry. I could talk about the need for more dentists and dental vans in North West Norfolk, but that would obviously be beyond the scope of this debate—I will not encourage you to stand up to make me be quiet, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt) has pointed out, this is an enabling power; there is no guarantee of an extension, with that coming back to the plans put forward by the ZSL to convince people that it is deserving of this extension. It will be held to account and so it will be able to go off to raise the funds to enhance this world-class facility.
To conclude, having opened in 1826, the zoo will soon be celebrating 200 years. This important Bill will help to ensure that it continues to play the crucial role it has had since then in protecting animals by providing better enclosures and better facilities for them, and ensuring that vital research continues, while remaining a leading visitor attraction where people can come to learn more about our wonderful world.
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons Chamber
Several hon. Members rose—
Order. Speeches are beginning to become a little elastic. If that continues, we will have to have a six-minute time limit.
After Mr Perkins, I will impose a time limit of six minutes in order to ensure that we can accommodate all Members still waiting to speak.