Grassroots Football: Feltham and Heston

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. Covid-19 has had a serious and detrimental impact on football, from premier league teams all the way down through the pyramid structure of football. The giants of the game have received much media attention recently, and not all for good reason. I joined colleagues on both sides of the House in condemning proposals for a new European super league. It is one of the reasons why I sought this debate.

May I start by sharing our deepest condolences with the family of Jordan Banks, a nine-year-old boy who was killed in a tragic incident last night playing football in Blackpool? Our hearts go out to him and his whole family at this time. That could have been anybody, anywhere. It is a tragic incident, and our thoughts are with them.

Football is so much more than just a sport, and it begins at grassroots level. When we talk about grassroots football, we need to truly appreciate what that means. Grassroots football is about every park and every playing field across the UK. It is about giving every club and every individual of all ages and genders who has the desire to be involved in the game the opportunity to do so. Even in the face of financial pressures and the disappointment of not being able to play due to the covid pandemic, the response from football clubs at all levels has been remarkable. It shows the integral place that clubs have at the heart of our communities, bringing people together and supporting one another on and off the pitch.

The Football Association’s latest report on the social health and economic value of grassroots football found that more than 14 million people play grassroots football in England alone, which equates to a quarter of the population. It contributes more than £10 billion to society each year, while childhood football participation helps with the reduction of more than 60,000 cases of depression and anxiety, and more than 200,000 cases of childhood obesity.

The grassroots game, as we emerge from the pandemic, is uniquely positioned to have a positive impact on not only the nation’s mental and physical health, but our economy. The benefits extend further, with social interactions that will help people to develop confidence, communication and resilience. The comradery, friendship and values of teamwork are all crucial in helping to shape people’s identities, supporting emotional wellbeing and dealing with difficult times, and I will illustrate that through the particular stories of two local clubs.

I thank all involved in grassroots football clubs in Hounslow and across the country, on behalf of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). Clubs in our constituencies are supported by the Brentford FC Community Sports Trust, which delivered more than 1,000 activity packs to children and families, supported more than 100 young carers who were shielding, ran virtual youth clubs and provided mentoring support. Starting in June, in partnership with Premier League Kicks, there will also be a new football development centre, which will be delivered at Springwest Academy in Feltham for students from local schools currently receiving free school meals and from low-income families. In partnership with Bedfont Sports FC, it also delivers a girls-only weekly training session.

In my constituency, clubs include Bedfont Sports FC, with Bedfont Eagles in the Isthmian League south central division, Hanworth Villa FC and CB Hounslow United FC in the Combined Counties premier division, and Bedfont and Feltham FC and FC Deportivo Galicia in the Combined Counties division one. Collectively they have been able to support thousands of children and young people playing each year. Everyone, from young people all the way up to people in their 60s, is able to join a club and play either on a Saturday or Sunday. At the vast array of clubs in these leagues, we have seen at first hand all ethnicities, ages and religions playing together. We also have the incredible Feltham Bees supporting football for children and young people with disabilities, run by the incredible Ray Coleman at Springwest Academy.

I want to recognise the amazing leadership that comes from within our communities to help grassroots football. I pay tribute to Dave Reader from Bedfont, who sadly passed away with covid in November last year—a legend to whom the community has not yet been able to pay proper tribute. He gave a lifetime of service in grassroots football, from the local Sixth Hounslow Cub Scouts football club in Cranford 35 years ago, to the work with Bedfont Eagles and, over the years, support for other clubs, including Whitton Wanderers and CB Hounslow United.

Last night I spoke to Dave’s son Terry about his father, who had even won a BBC Unsung Hero award. Over 35 years, he helped to build local grassroots football. Dave and Terry worked together, and Terry continues so much of that work today. They have led on the ground and working in partnership with the local authority and others. A lease and a chance are what Hounslow Council gave Dave and Bedfont many years ago.

Since then, through partnership and sheer hard work, love and commitment, they also managed to raise over £3 million in partnership with the Football Foundation and others. About 350 children play each year and about five adult teams see 80 to 100 playing also. The club has had a partnership with Kingston College for a programme for 16 to 19-year-olds, but with the football played at Bedfont. The club now even has dance classes and boxing classes. Over the years, Dave touched a lot of people and has left a huge legacy.

But the issues on the frontline have been devastating post covid. The impact on children has been a lot more than people have seen, with children suffering mental health issues, becoming reclusive, not wanting to be active, or putting on weight. Clubs have described to me the joy of children being able to reunite with their friends and said how brave they have been. The first ask from local clubs is about support to help in dealing with the rise in mental health issues. They say they are learning as they go to support each other and their young people, but they are not trained in mental health and would really appreciate guidance and support on what best to do.

I was told the story of one nine-year-old boy impacted by anxiety and the strain of the pandemic whose mental health deteriorated so much that he was hospitalised. Only recently he came back to the club. The huge impact of a short video from his young team-mates saying how much they needed him gave a massive boost, and they are working together to support his recovery. As Terry described it to me, he tells the coaches, “You are their second dad.”

The second ongoing issue for so many of our clubs is financial support and the financial consequences of the pandemic. Clubs have been able to benefit from grant support that has been hugely welcomed. Hounslow Council’s thriving communities fund has also been vital, and is helped with other bits of support, like that from the Mayor of London’s Laureus project, which have been vital to helping local clubs get through. However, they have raised with me the ongoing impact of having no income for a year. There is facilities upkeep and other costs, and the worry that now lockdown is ending, these challenges may be put aside as everyone thinks that things have returned to normal. For clubs to continue to grow and thrive, ongoing strategy and support is going to be needed.

The third issue is the stability of home grounds and places to play casually. One of my local clubs, started by Frank James and supported daily by Vijay Kumar and other coaches and supporters, has struggled to keep access to its home ground at Green Lane in Hounslow. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth has said that she is saddened about the situation having, as a councillor before becoming an MP, helped CB Sports with the lease and subsequent grant application to transform a little-used piece of grass into a fine set of facilities.

The club is supported very closely by Middlesex FA, which has been assisting in efforts to make sure that it has the pitch hire agreement needed to satisfy the conditions of the Combined Counties football league. The lease for the past few years, however, has been with Hounslow Sports Club, run by Mr Stephen Hosmer, which has been continuing to put obstacles in the way of an agreement even though it is a condition of its own lease with Hounslow Council. Hounslow Sports Club under Mr Hosmer has failed to maintain pitches. Shockingly, just two weeks ago, Hounslow Sports Club was prosecuted by Thames Water for offences to which it pleaded guilty relating to using an illegal water connection at the premises and a water fitting that caused or was likely to cause an erroneous measurement of water. It is surely unacceptable for the ability of children to play football and to be in supportive environments to be held back by such behaviour.

I have seen the work of CB Hounslow United. I have met the young footballers. I have spoken to the parents and I have seen the devastating impact the situation has had: the drop-off in players, because they do not know week to week where their next game or training will be; and parents trying to plan their complex lives juggling work and home. How are they going to get their children to and from practice and games? It is a really difficult and challenging situation.

Stability for play is vital to help to build the relationships that hold clubs together, and to build the family connections and wellbeing which so often support young people going through difficult times and give them the space and the support they need. What these stories also show is that local authorities are vital. There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to support grassroots football. Currently, they must provide essential services for their residents. However, sports and recreation facilities, and the delivery of community sport services, are not a requirement.

I may also raise here—I have discussed this previously with the Minister—the side issue of families using local parks for parkruns at the weekend. They have struggled to get parkruns going as lockdown ends. Jon in my constituency raised the issue of the Government’s position on when parkruns will be able to restart, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on that.

We must also ask the way to make sure how local authorities can be better supported to help grassroots football thrive. Hounslow Council developed a welcome local football facility plan in 2019 for pitches, changing room pavilions, clubhouses and other priority projects, but that is only deliverable alongside a national strategy and integrated place-based support. We also need a more localised approach to grassroots football that removes barriers to issues such as pitch access for training and fixtures, and engagement in the women’s game.

A localised approach to address the barriers they face should target increased funding into grassroots football and help to ensure that football remains affordable. Football clubs should never have to call off a game because their regular playing field is overbooked, or because they cannot afford the costs of the football pitch. Nor should they need to postpone fixtures due to the pitch not being of adequate quality. The popularity of the grassroots game is not yet matched by the facilities. Only one in three grass pitches is of adequate quality, and about 150,000 matches are called off every season due to poor pitch quality. This is what grassroots football needs to ensure that no one and no club gets left behind.

In March, I was pleased to attend the launch of the Football Association’s new grassroots football strategy. This is an excellent basis on which to address some of the challenges we face. I am pleased to see a commitment to ensure pathways into and through the male and female games, including disability provision, with bespoke participation opportunities as needed. Looking ahead to ensure the game thrives, they emphasise not only encouraging new participation at every age group and from historically underrepresented groups, but harnessing the power of digital to better connect participants to the game they love. It also means ensuring the game is played in a safe, welcoming and inclusive environment free from racism and discrimination.

On that point, earlier this month Ian Wright shared a video on social media where he discussed, with Alan Shearer, the racism he receives as a black ex-footballer and football commentator, showing how important it is to foster a more inclusive environment throughout football. I have heard from young people in my constituency about the racism they face which on occasion has forced them out of clubs. I know it is very much a problem that is still live, and there needs to be accountability and action to address it. There needs to be support for those who are victims of racism, so that they are not the ones who have to leave, but those who perpetrate racism. The Premier League’s social media blackout over the bank holiday weekend was a welcome show of solidarity to those suffering from racism, but we need tangible action, not just symbolism, if this issue is to be tackled effectively and I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on this issue, too.

In conclusion, I hope the Minister will join me in celebrating the contribution of grassroots football for millions across our country as the base from which national players are first given the opportunity to play. Volunteers such as Dave and Terry Reader, Ray Coleman, Frank James and Vijay Kumar in my constituency are second to none, but in the challenges that they all face, they need greater support to provide the service that our communities need and to support the volunteers who work with them to do so.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s response on the issues I have raised, particularly on extra support and guidance to train volunteers in helping to deal with mental health issues; on sustained funding and support post-lockdown, because things will not be returning to normal overnight; and on the delivery of an inclusive national grassroots football strategy, free from discrimination, that also supports local authorities in their key role in working with the FA and the Football Foundation in delivering the opportunities for the game on the ground.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

At the beginning of your speech, Seema Malhotra, you mentioned the tragic death of the nine-year-old lad from Lancashire, young Jordan Banks. On behalf of the Speaker and the British Parliament, I should like to send our condolences to his family, to all his team mates at Clifton Rangers junior football club and to all his friends. The hearts of the British Parliament, and our love, go to you all.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) on securing this Adjournment debate and on raising the important issue of grassroots sport, and football in particular, as well as the role that local authorities can play in supporting sport, the role of sport in local communities and a wide range of other issues. It is a pleasure to respond to her.

Following the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady and by you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), whom I spoke to earlier, I would also like to express on behalf of the Government and many others in this House our condolences to the family and friends of Jordan Banks, the nine-year-old boy who it would appear was tragically struck by lightning and killed while out playing football on Tuesday evening at Clifton Rangers junior FC. The club and the local community are clearly devastated by his loss, as evidenced by the outpouring on social media, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends at this incredibly difficult time.

It is clear from the hon. Lady’s comments that she shares my view that sport and physical activity are hugely important for our physical and mental health, and I really appreciate the focus that she put on mental health. Indeed, that is why the Government have ensured that people can exercise throughout the national restrictions and why we have prioritised sport to open first when easing those restrictions. The road map out of lockdown in England laid out by the Prime Minister included a step approach to the return of outdoor and indoor sport. In March, school sport was allowed to resume, recreation or exercise outdoors with your household or one other person was permitted, and outdoor sports facilities were able to reopen. On 12 April, indoor leisure facilities including gyms and swimming pools were able to reopen for individual use, and on 17 May, almost all the rest of the sector will be able to reopen, including remaining indoor leisure facilities and adult indoor group sports and exercise classes, as well as some large events.

The hon. Lady mentioned parkruns. I have met recently members of the leadership of Parkrun, and they take their responsibility to run those events incredibly seriously, with volunteers and others throughout the country. There is nothing to prevent them from starting very soon, and I understand that their plans are to start again nationally from early June. I encourage local authorities that work with Parkrun to ensure that these events can open safely to take the applications seriously and sympathetically, because I think we would all like to see parkruns start again very soon. Looking forward, no earlier than 21 June, we hope that the remaining settings will open, including even more large events.

As the hon. Lady said, football is our national game, and it plays a really special part in many people’s lives up and down the country. It is clear from her comments that grassroots football clubs in her constituency have a really important role to play. It is the same in my constituency and in many others. Football is often the social glue that binds a community together, with young and old getting behind their team and supporting together come thick or thin. I saw many of those benefits at first hand when I was put through my paces—literally—during a visit to Rectory Park in west London to celebrate the reopening of grassroots sport last month. More recently I also visited Solihull and, at the end of the spectrum, Everton, and saw the great work done in those communities.

Football has important physical and mental health benefits, which are rightly being recognised as we emerge from the pandemic with a fresh determination to be a fitter and healthier nation. I completely agree with the emphasis that the hon. Lady put on the importance of sport and football in improving mental health. She also rightly focused on financial support. It is in recognition of the benefit of grassroots sport, including football, that the Government have provided a large amount of financial support. That includes pan-economy support to businesses through tax reliefs, cash grants and employee wage support, which community clubs up and down the country have also drawn on to help them through the pandemic.

Sport England has also provided £220 million directly to support community sports clubs and exercise centres through the pandemic through a range of funds, including its £35 million community emergency fund. As the hon. Lady knows, three football projects in the Feltham and Heston area have received funding from the community emergency fund: the Indian Gymkhana football club, Bedfont and Feltham football and social club, and Hanworth Villa FC. More support has recently been announced with the publication of Sport England’s “Uniting the Movement” strategy, which commits an extra £50 million to help grassroots sports clubs and organisations affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

It is important to recognise that, as well as standing behind local clubs during the current coronavirus crisis, support for grassroots football long precedes the pandemic. The Government have consistently invested significant sums through the Football Foundation over the past few years, as part of an established partnership with the Football Association and the Premier League that is focused on investing in community facilities, with the Government contributing £18 million each year. This three-way partnership sees a combined £70 million going to new facilities delivered by the Football Foundation charity every year. I am pleased to say that this investment is being felt directly in the hon. Lady’s constituency, with the Football Foundation awarding 10 facilities grants in the area totalling more than £750,000 since 2009.

We intend to build on that good work in the future, which is why in our 2019 election manifesto we pledged an additional £550 million investment in community sports facilities over the next 10 years. This will build a strong foundation for the bid for the 2030 men’s FIFA World cup. At the last Budget we announced the first tranche of that investment, with £25 million to be spent across the UK. I would like to recognise the Football Association in particular for the huge role it continually plays in encouraging and cultivating grassroots football across the country.

The hon. Member also mentioned the stability of clubs and challenges around leases. I cannot comment in detail about the particular circumstances mentioned, but I am alarmed to hear about some of the difficulties and I sympathise over the concerns she has expressed. I certainly hope that all stakeholders involved in the discussions can find a route towards a long-term future for the club. Unfortunately, I am also hearing about similar patterns across the country.

The hon. Lady also mentioned the important issue of racism in sport. She and I agree—in fact, the whole House agrees—that there is no room for discrimination and racism in sport. Recently I met with footballers, social media companies and many other stakeholders, as well as football authorities, to discuss racism and discrimination in sport. The Government are taking action, including through the draft Online Harms Bill announced this week.

We should also bear in mind that a lot of harassment is already illegal and it is not all online, although unfortunately, a large amount of it is. I encourage all those who suffer discrimination and abuse, online or offline, to make sure that they report it to the police and indeed to the social media companies, who do take their responsibilities seriously. Of course, with the new Bill we will be encouraging them to take those responsibilities even more seriously—there is the potential for fines if they do not remove inappropriate content. So further action is being taken, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady and others in progressing that Bill.

It goes without saying that the past year has been like no other. I am determined that the sport sector, including grassroots football, emerges from the pandemic even stronger than ever. This Government made sure that grassroots sport was the first to return after lockdown, and they will continue to invest in the game to ensure facilities for all.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am grateful for the Minister’s responses on some of the issues raised. I wonder whether he would say a little more about mental health support and the experience of clubs at the moment, and whether more can be done to give advice, training and guidance on what they are clearly now doing on the frontline, which is supporting children in our community.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. She raised an important point during her speech, and I would be happy to continue the dialogue with her on this. I have spoken to many clubs and, as I say, the work they already do in providing additional support, often in association with support facilities—local councils and others—is vital. Unfortunately, we have seen real challenges, particularly for children, and the suffering they have gone through with mental health challenges during coronavirus. It is important that we all do more. There is a role for Government, for local authorities and for sport, which has stepped up to the plate. The clubs have stepped up to the plate and are extremely innovative. I have been very impressed with some of the initiatives I have seen at clubs up and down the country. I would like to see more, and we would be happy to work with the sector to see more.

The hon. Lady raised many important points and we will not be able to address them all today, but I thank her for her commitment and for all the points she has raised. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with her and others.

Question put and agreed to.

Football Spectator Attendance: Covid-19

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing the debate, and I am pleased to be able to say a few words.

Football spectator attendance is an issue that has meant a huge amount across the country, with almost 200,000 people having signed the petition to call for spectators to be able to attend matches. The debate shows how football is much more than just a sport; indeed, it brings people and communities together. My local team, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), is Brentford football club, which has been right at the heart of supporting our west London community and young people throughout the pandemic.

I welcome the contribution of the English Football League and the constructive way in which it and others have engaged in the debate about football spectator attendance. It recognises that we all want fans to be able to return to stadiums as soon as it is safe to do so, and that the current situation is a result of the pandemic. In partnership with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, the EFL has developed a stringent set of ground safety protocols that could result, initially, in around 25% to 35% of stadium capacity in use. Importantly, social distancing can be maintained and the protocols are fully compliant with NHS track and trace. Football is also one of the most heavily regulated areas of crowd management, which means that clubs have considerable experience of handling and dealing with crowds in all different circumstances.

There has been concern that the Government’s treatment of football and of other businesses has been inconsistent. Instead, football should be seen as a standard bearer for how businesses could continue to operate responsibly and in accordance with Government guidance. Football needs a clearer road map from the Government on how football fans will be able to return to grounds when and where it is safe to do so. An ability to plan now could result in fans returning more quickly, particularly in lower-tier alert areas, following the end of national restrictions.

I mentioned the contribution of clubs to our communities—a point also made by many of my Labour colleagues, including the shadow sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who will attend the debate. During lockdown, Brentford FC Community Sports Trust delivered more than 1,000 activity packs to children and families, supported more than 100 young carers who were shielding, ran virtual youth clubs and provided mentoring support. I thank Jon Varney and others for their leadership during this time.

Most of all, what makes football special is the fans. Not only are they the life and soul of football, creating electric atmospheres on match day; they play a vital role in boosting teams and players, and sustaining clubs financially. The absence of fans over the past eight months has been crippling for many clubs and lower league teams. I know how disappointing it was for Brentford fans in my constituency of Feltham and Heston to be unable to see their team’s last ever games at the old stadium last season. I am particularly concerned about the challenging few months that Brentford FC faces, particularly when it has just invested in its new stadium, which now sits empty.

The financial pressure on local clubs is growing, and the Government urgently need to provide clubs and fans with some clarity and listen to their needs. In September, I raised that in the House and described how Brentford had been working closely with its local safety advisory group to develop appropriate safety protocols and social distancing measures to allow around 5,000 fans—about 20% of capacity—to attend.

Clubs have been working in innovative ways to bring fans safely back into football grounds. The English football league, the premier league, the women’s super league and the women’s championship have already staged 11 successful test events, showing that matches can be delivered safely. It is imperative, and the foremost priority, to protect public health, but as we look to the future the Government must also acknowledge that clubs require urgent clarity on plans to reopen stadiums. A big challenge facing them is the uncertainty and difficulty in planning without clear guidance and direction.

Although Brentford has persuaded 94% of season ticket holders to freeze their tickets for now—I thank the fans for doing so and for their support—we know that that is not sustainable and will put the club in a difficult position for next season without further Government guidance. We need a clear road map for fans to return, in line with other sectors, once the second national lockdown comes to an end. I ask the Minister to consider working closely with local safety advisory groups in doing so.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I think it would be sensible and help hon. Members if I impose a formal three-minute time limit from now. I call Julian Knight.

Professional and Amateur Sport: Government Support

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston]

My hon. Friend makes a range of points. Absolutely, we have to think very creatively about where our sports and recreational facilities where we can be active are—they are not always in the areas or owned by the people we expect. I am glad that such stakeholders take their responsibilities seriously, and I encourage them to open up as much as possible.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

With no clear path from the Government for spectators to return to sporting events safely, the financial pressure on football, including my local team and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury)—Brentford football club—is huge. Detailed plans were in place, with the local safety advisory groups and the Sports Grounds Safety Authority having worked together to bring reduced numbers of fans back safely, but now Brentford’s new stadium sits empty. How much and how quickly are the Government working with experts on safe spectator return, and when will the Minister bring forward an update? Fans will feel that he is penalising responsible football when football can contribute so much to the wellbeing of our nation.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I join the hon. Lady in thanking the SAGs and the SGSA for the work that they do. They have done immense work before and during coronavirus, and they will do so afterwards. They play a vital role in ensuring the safety of grounds; they will continue to do so; and we will continue to work with them.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill (First sitting)

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(c) the operator intends to provide an electronic telecommunications service that can deliver an average download speed of at least one gigabit per second.”

This amendment is intended to ensure that operators could apply for Part 4A order only if they intended to provide gigabit-capable broadband.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. This is my first time on a Public Bill Committee for a number of years, so I hope that you will be, if not indulgent, at least understanding of any errors that I should make.

It is also a pleasure to serve on such an important Committee. We are often told by Government Ministers and by wide-eyed techno optimists that we are going through a digital revolution in this country. When hon. Members are uploading videos to TikTok, and centuries-old parliamentary regulations are accessible via an Android app, it is hard not to feel that we have entered a brave new world of connectivity.

That is the case not just in this place, of course; the internet is central to our lives and those of our constituents. Some 99% of adults under 45, and 81% of the adult population as a whole, use it regularly. Those are impressive figures, so let us hear some more: 98%, 97%, 8%. Those numbers represent the full-fibre coverage of, respectively, Japan, South Korea and the United Kingdom.

The previous Labour Government brought first-generation broadband to 50% of all households within 10 years. Over a similar timespan, Conservative Governments have managed to bring full-fibre broadband, the current generation of technology, to only 8% of households, while our economic competitors have been achieving full-fibre coverage. We are 35th out of 37 in the OECD rankings of broadband connectivity. When it comes to broadband, the only global race that the Government are running is a race to the bottom.

In the past 10 years we have witnessed a lost decade for telecoms infrastructure. The Government have repeatedly left our national infrastructure needs to the market, resulting in a deepening of our country’s regional divide, which was already the worst in western Europe. Regional studies show a 30% gap in internet usage between the south-east and the north-west. In London, 85% of the population are internet users compared with 64% in my city of Newcastle. It is welcome that the Government have finally woken up to this problem, but I am still none the wiser about what “levelling up” actually means in this case.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making important points, particularly about the regional disparities and inequalities. Is she aware of any differences in who is using the internet? There might be differences in relation to children being able to study at home and people being able to work at home, which is critical for self-employment and for small businesses that might be starting up.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and her past experience in the IT sector leads her to understand and see the divides that exist—for example, people on lower incomes are less likely to use the internet and have access to broadband. There is also a real rural divide, with our rural telecoms infrastructure not enabling the kind of economic success stories of small businesses that she mentions. Unfortunately, the Bill does not address that. Indeed, many of the operators, such as TalkTalk, Mobile UK and Hyperoptic, have said that we need to upgrade our infrastructure, but the Bill does not address that.

In the last six months the Prime Minister has held three different positions on what kind of telecoms infrastructure we need: when he was standing to lead his party, he promised to deliver “full-fibre connectivity” to all households by 2025; the Government manifesto talked of “gigabit-capable connectivity” by 2025; and the Queen’s Speech dropped the 2025 reference altogether, promising instead to accelerate the roll-out. Will the Minister clarify exactly what the Government’s target is for broadband connectivity? Whatever the target is, and whatever the lofty ambitions are, I am afraid that the Bill will not achieve them.

The Bill is designed to enable people who live in flats and apartment blocks to receive gigabit-capable connections where their landlord repeatedly fails to respond to telecom operators’ requests for permission to install their infrastructure. The network builders say they face significant challenges in connecting people living in flats and apartment blocks when they do not receive a response from the building owner to requests for access. According to Openreach, 76% of multi-dwelling units miss out on initial efforts to deploy fibre because of challenges in gaining access.

The Bill provides a bespoke process for telecoms operators to gain access to MDUs in order to deploy, upgrade or maintain fixed-line broadband connections in cases where a tenant has requested an electronic communications service but the landlord has repeatedly failed to respond to an operator’s request for access. For a telecoms company to install equipment such as cables on public or private land, formal permission through an access agreement with the landowner/occupier is required. Under such an agreement, the landowner grants the communication provider a licence to install, access and maintain equipment on their land. The Bill takes into account the fact that landlords are not always responsive or eager to meet their tenants’ needs.

The measures in the Bill are welcome and the Opposition will not be voting against it. In the context of the lost decade, however, we are truly dismayed by the Bill’s limited scope. It proposes only minor measures to ease infrastructure build-out by giving operators more powers to access apartment blocks when tenants request service. The sector has welcomed the Bill but without any great enthusiasm, saying that the difference it will make will be marginal. The trade body for the tech industry, techUK, says it does not go far enough, stating that

“from new builds to street works”,

many issues

“have not been tackled by the Government’s Bill.”

We have tabled several amendments to improve the Bill, but before I speak to amendment 9, I will briefly mention additional flaws that the Opposition have not sought to fix through amendments. There is the matter of consistency with other regulations. The internet is now an essential utility for modern life and, as such, telecoms operators should possess the same powers as those who provide other utilities, but the Bill does not go far enough on that. We appreciate that the Government acknowledge the necessity of broadening the rights of telecoms providers, but they have not actually done so in the Bill. They have given no statutory rights of access to telecoms companies and placed no obligations on landlords to facilitate access.

Do the Government recognise that the internet is an essential utility, and do they believe that telecoms should be brought into line with other utilities, for which forced entry is permitted on the grounds of ensuring that there is no threat to life or safety? Obviously, that might not be the case with telecoms, but I want to understand the comparison that the Government make between the telecoms utility and other utilities.

The amendment is intended to ensure that operators can apply for a part 4A order only if they intend to supply gigabit-capable broadband. Of course, we need to understand what gigabit-capable broadband is, but I am sure that the Minister will relieve us of that uncertainty. As I said, we have suffered 10 wasted years under Conservative Governments of various types, a unifying theme of which has been a misunderstanding of technology interspersed with a misuse of it.

Given that the Prime Minister has expressed three different positions in six months, what is the aim of the Bill? Does it aim to provide gigabit broadband? On Second Reading the Minister said that the legislation will be a “hammer blow” to crack our woeful broadband nut. I can only assume therefore that the legislation does not serve simply to give operators opportunities to lock in my constituents to slow broadband. The Minister said that it must deliver gigabit-capable broadband, so I cannot imagine that he will have any objections to enshrining that in the legislation by supporting the amendment.

I also seek clarification on whether anything in the Bill confines it to fixed-line operators. Will the Minister confirm whether, under the terms set out in the Bill, it would be possible for a mobile operator to install a mobile base station, for example, for the purposes of delivering gigabit-capable broadband, either to one building or another? How does the Bill ensure, in the case of wireless or mobile broadband, that services are limited to a particular building only?

The amendment would make it clear that the Government are proceeding with their commitment to deliver on gigabit-capable broadband and that the Bill cannot be used to deliver slower broadband, so it will contribute to our broadband infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

One issue that is not clear to me in the Bill or the explanatory notes is whether there is a time limit within which the operator might need to respond to a request from a tenant. There is more about the operator giving notices to the landlord—the grantor—but what about a deadline by which an operator might need to respond to a request from a tenant?

[Matt Warman]

There is no set deadline imposed on a private commercial organisation because individual operators are not all regulated in the same way. For instance, Openreach is regulated differently. It is a commercial decision for them, and the Government will do all that they can through processes such as this to try to encourage a speedy response. It is for Ofcom to regulate responses, as it does in the complaints procedure. As the legislation comes into force, Ofcom will consider whether response times to complaints might be thought of in the same way.

[Seema Malhotra]

Currently, in the way that the implementation of the Bill is envisaged, if an operator chooses not to respond or takes many months, is there anything in place to sanction or challenge that?

[Matt Warman]

The answer is that at the moment that is one of the problems. The Bill introduces the process by which we might look at whether the responsiveness to requests is something that Ofcom might look at. However, the hon. Lady is right to ask. We want to see a speedy roll-out, and the response from operators is an important part of a speedy roll-out. We are very much on the same page. We would not want to see operators ignoring the requests of potential customers, and I hope that neither would the operators, because in many cases they have a potential commercial opportunity.

Let me address the two specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. As discussed on Second Reading, we see broadband as an important utility but, as she acknowledged in that debate, it is not the same as other utilities. It is obvious that as time goes on more and more essential services will depend on connectivity. As that situation evolves, we will need to keep it under review. However, she is accurate when she says that the threat posed by a lack of water is different from that posed by a lack of broadband. We should treat them differently; it is horses for courses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

I genuinely sympathise with what the hon. Lady is seeking to do, but her amendment also constrains a Bill that benefits from taking the approach that it does. Technically what she proposes would amend only one part, but amendment 9 would not amend the circumstances under which the part 4A order can be made because they are set out in paragraph 27B. There is a logical inconsistency in what she proposes, but the principle is very much the same as what the Government are seeking.

The hon. Lady would also inadvertently be delaying the roll-out of a service that would be a significant improvement even if it were not gigabit capable, and she undermines the principle of aspects of technology neutrality. Our intention has always been for the whole code to be technology-neutral. There would be no direct benefit from her amendment, although we very much share her ambitions. We want the Bill to benefit tenants whatever the service they request and, with that in mind, although the Government sympathise with her ambitions—

[Seema Malhotra]

I would like some clarification on a couple of points. What might the minimum speed be and would it be out of scope for a part 4A order to be used to upgrade broadband from copper networks to fibre, for example, if broadband were not fast enough for whatever reason? Do these plans sit alongside, or are they separate from, plans to implement the universal service obligation for a decent service broadband speed of 10 megabits per second, which is clearly much less than 1,000 megabits per second?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

These amendments seek to improve the legislation to enable others to make requests. As I understand it—I hope the Minister will clarify this— only freeholders and leaseholders can use the legislation as it stands.

Mr Chairman, I will not try your patience by expounding at length on the dire state of both home ownership and leasehold, or “fleecehold”, as many of my constituents call it. Home ownership rates among young people are a third lower than in the noughties, and for far too many, the leasehold system is broken. There are now 4.5 million households in the private rented sector, a jump of 63% in a decade, and we also know that tenants can easily find themselves in precarious and insecure circumstances through no fault of their own, or even with nowhere to live via a section 21 notice. All of this makes tenants dependent on the whim, or the pleasure, of their landlord. The upshot is that a large proportion of our population is condemned to renting for life, but with few rights and less certainty. We in this Committee can do something about that, at least when it comes to broadband.

Amendment 7 is intended to expand the definition of persons who can request an operator to provide an electronic telecommunications service to include rental tenants and other legal occupants who may not own the lease to the property they occupy. As the Bill stands—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, I hope—only the freeholder or the leaseholder can make that request, so what of the poor tenant who is desperate for gigabit broadband to enable them to work from home or grow their business? What if their landlord is difficult to reach or indifferent to their predicament? Should the person actually living in the building not have some rights here?

Furthermore—while we are considering who can make these requests—why are businesses left in the cold, particularly those in business parks, where there has often been great unmet demand for broadband? I hope the Minister will provide clarity as to whether business tenants and traders based in properties can use this legislation to upgrade their infrastructure and grow their business.

Amendment 4 is more of a probing amendment, designed to understand whether the Government know what they are doing when it comes to broadband deployment. Before I entered Parliament, I spent a significant number of years rolling out broadband networks in the UK, France, the US, Nigeria, Singapore and Australia, so I know that building out a telecom network requires a plan; it would be nice if the Government understood that keeping networks secure requires a plan, too, but we will come on to that later. In any case, building out a telecom network requires a plan with a business case, predicted revenues, and—well, I am sure the Minister gets the picture.

As the Bill stands, the operators can plan to pass a building, but they cannot plan on getting any revenue from that building, because they cannot make the request to access the buildings that they pass. If the landlords do not respond, the operators cannot use this legislation unless and until a leaseholder or freeholder makes the request.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is making an important point, on which I would like to support her. The situation has been very different on the ground, and from the experience I have had with leaseholders in blocks, it is sometimes very difficult to get individuals to come forward. When they talk privately with each other, they say that they do want something to happen, and they want an operator to take the lead. In order to provide some flexibility to achieve the outcome we want to see, does she agree that it would be worth considering the right of operators to make the requests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

I once again admire the hon. Lady’s ability to get national security matters into the discussion, as she herself to some extent implied, although her doing so was a lot less gymnastic than her peroration on leasehold. Although today is the first opportunity that we have had to talk about telecommunications since the announcement, there will be a far broader important debate on national security and high-risk vendors. That legislation will, of course, overarch many pieces of legislation, including this Bill.

We have listened carefully to the broad debate, both on high-risk vendors and on the amendment. I know that Members are interested in this matter, following the Government’s decision. In that decision, it was made clear that there will be new controls across the board on high-risk vendors, who will be excluded from all safety-related and safety-critical networks in critical national infrastructure, excluded from the security-critical core network functions, limited to a minority presence of up to 35% in the other parts of the network, and subjected to tight restrictions, including exclusions from sensitive geographic locations.

The Government made the decision on high-risk vendors after considering all the necessary information and analysis from the NCSC, industry and our international partners. It was an evidence-based decision, taken on a comprehensive security assessment, and noting the realities of the telecoms market. Members will be given a full opportunity to contribute to the important debate on high-risk vendors when the relevant legislation is brought before Parliament. However, as I think the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central knows, to do so for this piece of legislation risks introducing a degree of incoherence in what is an important debate. We will do it in a coherent, sensible way in due course, and I hope that Members are reassured that the Government remain committed to working with Parliament as a whole to protect our future telecoms network, important though this Committee is.

[Seema Malhotra]

This is indeed a very important area. I slightly disagree with the Minister on whether referring to high-risk vendors is to extend the debate on today’s legislation. However, in terms of the implementation of the legislation, and operators and leaseholders going through the process, assuming that those operators obtain permission from the granters, will it be Ofcom that works to ensure that they abide by today’s legislation and the future high-risk vendor legislation?

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Member asks me to pre-empt what will be an important piece of legislation. What I can say is that we will ensure that nothing in today’s legislation could be used to circumvent that broader and more important piece of legislation, because obviously we have to ensure that 35% means 35% in whatever context.

I hope that Members understand that this is a hugely important issue. The Government are intent on doing things in a coherent and sensible way, so that we deal with matters of national security in the appropriate place rather than in a patchwork of measures with bespoke things in such places as this legislation. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central will withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

The important point is that there has to be a formal response “in writing”. By definition, in responding a landlord ceases to be unresponsive. This legislation aims to deal with unresponsive landlords.

[Seema Malhotra]

It would be an interesting exercise to go through all the different ways in which one could respond, but we would then be here for the afternoon session. The purpose of the Bill is to speed up the process for residents to secure superfast broadband. New paragraph 27B(4)(a) reads

“agrees or refuses, in writing, to confer or otherwise be bound by the code”

and so on. A response will surely be either an agreement or a refusal, or a point of clarification. The “otherwise acknowledges” could be as simple as an email saying, “I have received your notice.” For the purpose of speeding things up rather than providing new ways in which blocks could be put in place, it is important that the Minister provides further explanation of what is intended to be covered by “otherwise acknowledges” and how it helps, given the clarity of 27B(4)(a).

[Matt Warman]

I come back to my central point, which is that the Bill addresses the problem of landlords who do not respond. Ultimately, it does not confer a right to install equipment against the will of a landlord. Once a landlord engages with the process, they are not considered unresponsive and are not covered by the Bill. Obviously, a landlord has the right to prevent access—either through prevarication or by withholding permission—in almost all circumstances, whether for telecommunications infrastructure or for anything else.

I completely understand what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central is seeking to do, but ultimately the things that she wants defined are already defined on the face of the Bill, and they will clearly not benefit from being separately defined again. It is important that we are consistent with the electronic communications code and, although I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s desire to see broadband rolled out wherever it can be, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for his response. He said that the Bill does not confer a right to install equipment against a landlord’s will, and I am concerned that that effectively means that tenants do not have a right to superfast or gigabit-capable broadband, which I would argue is an increasingly important part of modern life. We joked earlier about the difference between access to water and access to broadband, but for many people broadband is an absolutely essential part of their working and social lives, and a forward-looking Government would ensure that citizens have a right to gigabit-capable broadband. Although the universal service obligation confers some rights, it does not deal with recalcitrant or unwilling landlords.

[Seema Malhotra]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a compromise or third way on this? The terms of new paragraph 27B(4)(b)—

“otherwise acknowledges the request notice in writing”—

are superfluous if a landlord is seeking to push action further down the road. If that is an incentive for landlords to engage less positively with those seeking to build networks, would the Minister at least consider reviewing—if not deleting—sub-paragraph (4)(b)? If responses from landlords fall considerably under that option, rather than agreeing or refusing with the reasons that one would expect in a positive dialogue, will the Minister consider whether that option should stay in the Bill?

[Matt Warman]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

It is a pleasure to respond positively, and not just in spirit but in practice, to the Minister’s amendments. They respond to concerns that we raised on Second Reading and those raised by others about increasing resources. The number of judges available to consider those requests and cases leaves much to be desired. Hopefully the Government’s amendments will make the limited scope of the Bill more effective, so we are happy to accept them.

New clause 1 responds to that by acknowledging that our judiciary is under severe strain at every stage. The new clause is designed with accountability and transparency in mind, so that we can see the impact of the new legislation on the resources available. The legislation sets out new legal functions. As with all good legislation, we must ensure that the new mechanisms are robust and well-resourced to ensure that the legislation does what it is meant to do, and does not fail when it makes contact with reality.

The new clause would require a report on resources to deal with proceedings arising under part 4A of the code be prepared and published within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent. It aims to ensure that we see the impact on our judiciary. Although the information may be available, I am sure that the Minister is aware that nothing concentrates minds as much as laying a report before Parliament for scrutiny by right hon. and hon. Members. That gives an opportunity to see how the legislation works in practice. I am sure the Minister is proud of the legislation and the impact it will have, so he must welcome the opportunity to speak to that in the House.

We do not have an impact assessment for this legislation. It is a short Bill, but that does not mean that its impact may not be important. When I spoke to operators, they estimated that it might cost around £30,000 to take a request through the tribunal. That is their estimate—I have not seen any Government figures to confirm whether they consider that to be high or low, but that would have been a welcome part of an impact assessment. The sum of £30,000 for a tribunal to access an apartment block with 10 apartments means an additional cost to the operator of £3,000 per customer. That has an impact on the business case for that investment in the first place.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am not seeking to incur the Minister’s displeasure by bringing in wider issues on leaseholding, but when landlords may be taken to court for any matter, they potentially charge their fees back to their leaseholders. Perhaps we should make sure that there is some protection.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Without raising all the concerns surrounding leasehold, it is well known that freeholders may charge the leaseholders for the costs they incur when seeking legal judgments. In addition to the £30,000 that the operator would put on to the cost of the service deployment, therefore, the leaseholders and ultimately the tenants may also find themselves facing the costs incurred by the freeholder going to tribunal.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion
Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Warman]

I can absolutely assure my right hon. Friend that our approach to connectivity is technology-agnostic, and 5G is very much part of the solution, rather than something leading to the exclusion of connectivity. He is right to imply that we aim to go significantly beyond current demand to pre-empt the sort of problem that would occur if we did not build far in advance.

The Prime Minister and this Government have been unwavering in their commitment to the delivery of high-speed, reliable, resilient connectivity to every home and business as soon as possible. For the United Kingdom to remain at the forefront of the global economy, our businesses and consumers must have access to the tools they need to thrive. Already, our superfast broadband programme covers over 96% of the country and has brought connectivity to more than 3 million premises that would otherwise have been bypassed by commercial deployment.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Labour Members recognise the importance of faster broadband. Indeed, I have worked with previous Ministers on this, and on the issue of notspots in my constituency. Does the Minister agree with me on the importance of the issue to young children, who need to study and do their school homework, and to people working at home? Issues have been raised about that in my constituency. Does he agree that the essential criterion of affordability must also be part of the Government’s strategy?

[Matt Warman]

Yes, the hon. Member is absolutely right. Teachers can only teach at the pace of the slowest broadband in the class if they are using digital technology; we have to be cognisant of that. We, with Ofcom, also have to be determined to ensure that competition continues to preserve the low prices that this country has typically benefited from.

[Seema Malhotra]

May I make a point of clarification? I was talking about children studying at home, and being able to do their homework. That is the issue raised with me by my constituents, particularly in areas where there are leasehold properties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Warman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the system is only as good as the resourcing behind it. We will explore every option to ensure that the tribunal gets those resources. We are confident that what we are proposing will work—we will make sure that it does—but of course we are open to considering what we can do to make it better as soon as we might need to.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. Will he clarify how he envisages the Government working with the devolved Administrations and councils —we should bear in mind the very good work with Transport for London on connectivity through tube stations—so that we get the maximum for the investment made from the public purse?

[Matt Warman]

Telecommunications is a reserved matter, but I have already discussed how the system will work through the equivalent tribunal schemes in the devolved Administrations. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that although bodies such as TfL are not directly affected by the Bill, we are working with colleagues at the Department for Transport to make sure that London and other places get the connectivity that they deserve on public transport. Plans are forthcoming for wider deployment of the wi-fi system that is currently available only in stations.

As I say, the Bill ensures that those living in blocks of flats and apartments—known by the telecommunications industry as multi-dwelling units, or MDUs—are supported in accessing new networks. Operators have raised concerns that multi-dwelling properties are proving exceptionally difficult to connect. As I am sure Members will know, operators require the permission of a landowner before they are permitted to install equipment on a property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak on the Bill as the shadow Minister for Digital. I start by declaring an interest: before entering the House, I worked as a telecommunications engineer for 23 years, rolling out telecoms infrastructure in countries as diverse as Germany and Nigeria, Britain and Singapore. I have a lifelong interest in and passion for digital and technology. I love a good network.

I am afraid that the 10 years I have been in Parliament has coincided with a rapid decline in the quality of our telecommunications infrastructure—not because of my move, but because successive Conservative Governments chose to leave everything to the market. As a consequence, at a time of digital revolution, of which the Minister spoke, when so much could have been achieved, we have instead had 10 wasted years. The last Labour Government oversaw a communications revolution, with first generation broadband reaching 50% of all households within 10 years. Labour understood the importance of supporting both investment and infrastructure competition. Under the Conservatives in the past decade, fibre has reached only 10% of homes and without meaningful support for competition.

Our telecoms infrastructure is letting us down, economically and socially, and it is our towns and villages that are suffering most, with farmers and rural businesses, the poor and the isolated in a digital no man’s land. We have lost a decade, and we need to make up and build out the full-fibre infrastructure that the country needs.

The Conservatives talk about unlocking the whole of Britain’s potential, and we are at the top of the class in business, research and technology, development, science and education, but how can we continue to lead on bottom-of-the-table infrastructure? The OECD ranks us 35th out of 37 countries for broadband connectivity, although ours is the fifth largest economy, and 85% of small and medium-sized enterprises said that their productivity was adversely affected by unreliable connections in 2019.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is making an important contribution to the debate. Does she agree that it is important to assess what this will achieve in practice, and to establish whether we will then be getting anywhere near the levels of full-fibre coverage in leading nations such as South Korea or Japan? Should we not measure the outcomes to ensure that the poorest and most distant communities can have the broadband that they need and deserve, and—as I said earlier—should we not also ensure that affordability remains at the core of the Government’s strategy?

[Chi Onwurah]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s experience and knowledge of the digital sector, which makes her very aware of the importance of ending the current digital divide. I shall say more about that in a moment.

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman paints a disturbing picture of rural communities that have yet to have the connectivity that they require, but it is also very true of the country as a whole. Telecommunications are not a devolved matter but the responsibility of the UK Government, and we need to look to them to ensure that we have the environment and the investment that are necessary to deliver fibre for everyone.

Sadly, our wasted 10 years in telecoms are not limited to fixed infrastructure. As we have heard, mobile and the softer infrastructure of regulation have also been left to languish, and that will have an impact on the effectiveness of the Bill. Conservative Governments have entrenched the digital divide in the UK: 11 million adults lack one or more basic digital skills, and 10% of households do not have internet access. At this rate, there will still be 7 million people without these skills in 2028, which is tantamount to leaving one in 10 of our population permanently disenfranchised. It is a real issue of social justice: for instance, the West End food bank in Newcastle receives many visits from parents who have been sanctioned because they cannot sign on online.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is continuing to make an excellent speech. Does she agree that it is important to address the issue of notspots as well as the issue of speed of broadband access, and not just in rural areas? Thousands of households even in big cities like London, and more than 1,000 in my constituency, have little or no access to broadband.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend has made another important point. Notspots do happen, even in city centres. There are householders who can see Canary Wharf from their windows, but cannot connect with its broadband network. We need to take responsibility for ensuring that we have a network infrastructure of fibre that reaches every home.

This wasted decade in telecoms has made many of us digiphobes. Two decades into the online age, we still do not have any date for the online harms Bill, even though the harms it addresses—children accessing pornography and online grooming—were well identified 10 years ago. Newer harms from algorithms, artificial intelligence, the internet of things—which the Minister did mention—and data dominance are ignored, repeating the mistakes of the past. We need a robust legal framework that deals with privacy, data, age verification and identity, complemented by measures that put in place protections for vulnerable people online, not ones that kick in after they have already been exposed, compromised, abused or scammed.

This wasted decade has allowed algorithms and disinformation to take hold of the news online. It is said that a lie gets around the world before truth has had a chance to get its shoes on. Unfortunately, this Government have taken 10 years just to tie their laces. They have failed to understand the opportunities and challenges of the digital revolution in the way in which the Labour party did. A decade of inaction has seen regulatory and infrastructural failures at the expense of the British people and British businesses.

Football Association and Bet365

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I welcome my hon. Friend to his place. He makes a very good point. As I said previously, I am encouraged that the national health service and the Health Secretary have begun to open clinics to provide advice and assistance to those who are affected, in particular targeting younger people who might be having issues with loot boxes or other types of behaviour that could prove addictive.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

This issue raises fundamental public policy questions about ethics, fair rules and controls, and the responsibility of the Government to protect the most vulnerable from exploitation. It also fundamentally calls into question the judgment of the FA. The chief executive officer of Bet365, Denise Coates, was paid £277 million in basic salary in the last financial year. Does that not suggest that something is fundamentally wrong with our gambling system and industry, and again highlight the need for fundamental root-and-branch reform?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady will not have missed the point that I have made on several occasions: we are going to be reviewing the Act. Bet365 does an awful lot of good work in the region that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned. It is a private company. The salaries of its executives are a matter for that business. My understanding is that the chief executive is resident in the UK and so pays her full share of tax on those moneys. But it is absolutely right that we hold the sporting bodies’ feet to the fire with regard to these broadcasting rights and make sure that they are dealt with responsibly. In this case, that has not happened.

TV Licences for Over-75s

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tom Watson]

I think it is, and my hon. Friend makes a good point. I would answer more fully, but I am already running over time.

Keeping TV licences free for all over-75s would require unprecedented cuts to the BBC’s spending on broadcasting and content. This is political cowardice: if the Government want to cut free TV licences for over-75s, they should say so—they should include it in the manifesto and let the public decide on the policy. If the Government want to cut the BBC’s budget by a fifth, they should say so—they should put it in the manifesto and let the public have their say at the ballot box.

The BBC has consulted on a range of options, from means testing, which would still see 3 million households lose out, to raising the qualifying age to 80, which would see 1.5 million households lose their free licence. The conclusions of that consultation are still outstanding, but one thing is clear: if these cuts go ahead in any of the suggested forms, the responsibility will lie firmly at the Government’s door. Passing the buck to the BBC was not a decision made in the national interest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has said, or for the benefit of older people; it was designed to give the Government political cover to cut a popular policy. This is austerity by stealth. The Conservative party made a commitment to the older people of this country, so now the Government should act and take both the policy and the financial responsibility for funding free TV licences for over-75s back in-house—the two should not be separated.

The BBC has been put in an impossible position by this Government, being asked either to make swingeing cuts to the programmes we all know and love or to take free TV away from older people. That is why when the National Pensioners Convention gathered to protest against scrapping the concession earlier this year, they did not convene outside Broadcasting House, but met outside the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Those protestors know the cost of losing free TV licences.

Age UK’s analysis shows that scrapping the concession completely could push more than 50,000 pensioners below the poverty line. For many, losing £154.50 from their pensions is a frightening prospect and it could mean being forced to choose between heating, eating or having a TV at home. This debate over free TV licences is an indicator of the Government’s broader policies for pensioners. For nine years, Tory austerity has saved money on the back of our most vulnerable citizens. By outsourcing responsibility for paying for TV licences, this Government will be cutting £745 million in 2021-22. That is in addition to the £220 million the Government will be saving in the same year through changes to pension credit. That is nearly a billion pounds of cuts the Government are making, coming directly out of the pockets of pensioners.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about how this will hit the most vulnerable and needy of our older people. Joanne, a 78-year-old disabled woman from my constituency, wrote to me to say:

“I worked as a teacher for more than 30 years. I have never claimed benefit of any kind until I became disabled…When I was able I went to the theatre, cinema…etc…Now my only source of entertainment is reading…and TV. To take away the free licence I feel, given what we have put into the country…is mean, petty and very unfair.”

Her wellbeing would be affected by not having TV, as would that of thousands of others. It is estimated that almost 6,000 people would be affected in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is outrageous and that we should be working in the opposite direction, in order to help our older people?

[Tom Watson]

Please tell Joanne that we are on her side and that we will be pressing the Government to honour their promises to her and the hundreds of thousands of other pensioners.

The number of pensioners living in poverty is rising—it is 1.9 million today, but it is forecast to pass 2 million by 2020. That is to this Government’s shame. Their austerity agenda asks us to focus on the numbers, but we must not forget the human reality of what life is like for our oldest citizens. Social isolation is the scourge that is on the rise. New research from Age UK shows that half of the 4.5 million over-75s in the UK do not live with a partner, with two thirds having a long-standing illness that means they find it difficult to get out and about. The most heartbreaking of these new statistics is the fact that 400,000 people aged over 75 go a week without meeting up with or speaking on the phone to friends or family. Just one in nine over-75s say that they are not lonely.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

My Department is working with local government to ensure that all local authorities step up to the plate with regard to their streets. Planning obstacles should be much reduced so that my hon. Friend’s constituents can benefit from superfast broadband.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Earlier this year, BT announced that it was set to hire 3,000 engineers to fill broadband notspots in cities and suburban areas. What assessment has the Minister made of progress in areas such as the Meadows estate in my constituency, which has been blighted for far too long by BT inaction? Will she meet me to understand the specific issues that those residents are facing?

[Margot James]

I am very aware of the difficulties that the hon. Lady quite rightly complains about. I am willing to meet her to discuss the needs of her constituents.