(4 days, 11 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 will indeed. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate and shining a light on the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200. The festival is a wonderful celebration of the birth of modern railway in the region, which transformed how the world traded, travelled and communicated.
In September 1825, the first passenger railway journey in the world took place between Stockton and Darlington. News reports at the time spoke of thousands of people lining the tracks to witness this small steam train as it travelled the 27 miles between Shildon, Darlington and Stockton. The journey led to the modern railway as we know it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke powerfully about its transformative impact, whether that be the package holiday or modern timekeeping. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) spoke about the link between industry, in particular coal—something I know very well from my constituency—and the huge role it played in developing local areas. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), rightly highlighted that we take connectivity for granted although it changed the social fabric of our country forever.
In just a few weeks’ time, we will mark 200 years since that momentous day. The Stockton and Darlington 200 festival will stage a re-enactment of that first steam journey, with a replica of Locomotion No.1 travelling along the historical line. The Government are proud to have supported the festival and the wider Railway 200 festival, which has partner events across the country. Railways transformed this country and the world, and it is right that we celebrate our past contribution to rail as well as looking to the future.
I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the local MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth), for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) and for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), and to the Members from slightly further afield, but present today in Westminster Hall—my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). They have all been working hard together to promote and support this anniversary over many months, and have also successfully campaigned to save the modern Hitachi train factory, which sits next to the original historical line.
The international Stockton and Darlington Railway 200, which celebrates the region’s unique contribution to rail history, has been a great success across 2025 so far. This Government are proud to support the festival, showcasing Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor’s outstanding contribution to the development of the modern railway.
Funding from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and its arm’s length bodies is central to helping communities to celebrate their proud heritage and the contribution they have made to this country. I am pleased to say that the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 festival has benefited from a range of heritage and arts funding sponsors that have helped to support the area in developing the infrastructure and events to commemorate this important anniversary.
The National Lottery Heritage Fund has a long history of supporting the UK’s outstanding rail heritage, and has invested more than £100 million in heritage rail projects since 1994. In 2022, the National Lottery Heritage Fund awarded a grant of more than £3 million to Darlington borough council for its Stockton and Darlington railway project. The five-year project developed the Darlington railway quarter, creating a new railway attraction called Hopetown, which opened in July last year. The brilliant new museum and surrounding heritage buildings celebrate the past, present and future of rail travel engineering genius.
Hopetown was funded by a total investment of more than £35 million, with additional sponsors including Historic England, Arts Council England and the Railway Heritage Fund. I was pleased to see that Hopetown won the Heritage Railway Association Railway 200 special award earlier this year. It is a great example of the power of heritage to revitalise areas. Hopetown, of course, is the original name of that area of Darlington at the time of the industrial boom 200 years ago. I am glad to hear that the project is a great source of pride for my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington; I know it is one of the most significant heritage museums and attractions in the north-east.
Historic England, along with other arm’s length bodies of DCMS, has been heavily involved in supporting the north-east as it approaches the anniversary. In 2018, it established the Stockton and Darlington railway action zone to help to rejuvenate and restore the historical railway, and to realise its potential to become a major heritage attraction and visitor destination in the approach to 2025. Running from 2018 to 2023, with a total investment of more than £2.3 million from Historic England and numerous other sponsors, that fantastic project laid the essential foundations for the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 bicentenary celebrations and the railway line’s longer-term management as a world-class visitor attraction.
On the Railway 200 festival more widely, over the past year, the Government have been working with Network Rail and partners across the country to help to deliver the partner-led initiative that celebrates the 200th anniversary of modern rail. Railway 200 explores how rail shaped Britain and the world. As this Government transform our railway system today, bringing the railways back into public ownership, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South spoke about, Railway 200 will also look to the future, encouraging more people to take the train and inviting the next generation of pioneering talent to join the railway industry and become the history makers of tomorrow.
Alongside the fantastic work going into the Stockton and Darlington festival, other railway museums have been supported as part of the Railway 200 festival. The National Rail Museum in York is a key regional sponsored museum, and part of the Science Museum Group. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly paid tribute to Jennie Lee for her campaigning work on that. Events will be taking place across the country, and we heard a really good example from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker).
Much of the Railway 200 activity is being delivered through arm’s length bodies, many of which benefit from Government support. I look forward to the culmination of the bicentenary celebrations in late September, and I know the Rail Minister will join the events in the north-east marking 200 years since the first passenger journey—an historic moment that changed travel forever. I am familiar with the 1920s law that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East mentioned; I will reflect his comments to the relevant Department.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor for his personal contribution to railway heritage, and his support for the Friends of the Stockton & Darlington Railway. I pay tribute to them for their tireless campaigning. I end by putting on record a huge thanks to all the volunteers up and down the country who support heritage railways for all the work they do, as we mark this very important 200-year anniversary.
(5 days, 11 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am pleased to be responding to this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on securing it. His passion for cricket was incredibly clear in the speech that he gave.
Cricket is one of our nation’s most beloved and cherished sports. Whether it is played at Headingley or in a village’s local cricket club, it builds character and brings communities together. Indeed, I visited Darfield cricket club in the village where I live last weekend for one of their community events. Barnsley is the home of Dickie Bird—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Indeed: hear, hear. Cricket is how he became lifelong friends with one of Barnsley’s other famous sons, Michael Parkinson. For those who want to hear more about Michael Parkinson’s views on cricket, he wrote a book on it and was a lifelong fan himself.
Cricket is an enduring part of our social fabric, played and loved by millions. It is right that we take the time to recognise the importance of cricket participation across the country. Grassroots cricket reaches a broad and diverse range of communities, with a third of recreational players coming from south Asian backgrounds, who otherwise make up just 8% of the overall population, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra). I am also delighted to see the strong growth in women’s cricket, with participation in England and Wales up by 22% last year, as the Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), outlined. It is also great to see the ECB youth programmes, such as All Stars and Dynamos, providing fun and engaging ways for young women and girls to participate in inclusive cricket.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked if I had ever played cricket. I remember the predecessor to the youth scheme from when I was at school, Kwik Cricket, and I also grew up with my grandad, who was a huge fan of Warwickshire county cricket club, in the West Midlands. I did have a go a few weeks ago when I had the pleasure of visiting the women and girls cricket festival at Sheffield collegiate cricket club, just down the road from my constituency in Barnsley, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), to hear about the impact that grassroots cricket clubs have in their local communities, particularly on young women and girls. Of course, it was also a pleasure to cheer on England at Edgbaston back in July—I think the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton and I were at different matches.
I recognise that the hon. Member for Cheltenham has chosen free-to-air broadcasting as the subject of today’s debate, so I hope he will allow me to begin by touching on the wider investment into cricket participation, as it is essential to understand the position relating to broadcasting. The Government are committed to supporting cricket, from the elite game down to grassroots participation. The Government provide the majority of support for grassroots sport through Sport England, which annually invests over £250 million in Exchequer and lottery funding. That includes long-term investment to the ECB, which receives £11.6 million over five years to invest in grassroots cricket initiatives in local communities, to get people more involved in cricket.
I recently saw some of the great work that Chance to Shine does to provide opportunities for children to play, learn and develop through cricket, at its impact report event here in Parliament. I was delighted to see that in action myself when I visited the Chance to Shine project in my constituency, in Worsborough in Barnsley last year. Initiatives such as the ECB’s Chance to Shine, Premier League Kicks, the FA’s Comets and Premiership Rugby’s Hitz programmes are transforming young people’s lives through the power of sport, particularly those under-represented groups such as girls, those with a disability and those from ethnically diverse or lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
I am particularly proud of the Government’s recent commitment to invest £1.5 million in capital funding for two new state-of-the-art cricket domes. This investment, which is in addition to the funding that Sport England provides for the ECB to support grassroots participation, will see new domes at Farington cricket club in Preston and in Luton. These facilities will serve as community hubs focusing on women, girls and under-represented communities, and will form part of the legacy plans for the 2026 T20 cricket world cup.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), as I am sure all hon. Members do, in wishing the England women all the best. I echo the points of the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on women’s sport. It was an absolute pleasure to be in Brighton this weekend to launch the Government’s women’s sports task force—in the interests of time, I will perhaps write to the hon. Lady to share some information about that.
The investment that I touched on aligns with our key strategic priorities on place-based policy, because Luton and Preston are poorly served by cricket facilities. In June, we announced that a further £400 million will be invested in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, which will remove the barriers to physical activity for under-represented groups, including women and girls; it will support more women and girls to take part in the sports that they love, particularly by ensuring that funded sites across the UK provide priority slots for them. That funding is in addition to the £1.5 million for the two cricket domes.
The hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup says that the previous Government invested £34 million, but they did not as the money was not there. I direct him to the parliamentary written question that he posed to me, which I answered on Thursday 3 September 2025. That commitment was simply unfunded, and I made that point when I appeared in front of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. The Government are now working with sports and local areas to decide how and where the £400 million will be spent, to ensure that more people can access a wide range of sports in the places most in need of investment. Cricket will clearly be part of that conversation.
I will now turn specifically to the impact of free-to-air broadcasting on grassroots sports participation. Sport has the power to inspire people to get active. Evidence suggests that viewing infrequent major events, such as the Olympics, that feature a range of sports, including sports that appeal to the inactive, have a greater impact on participation than regular broadcasts of professional sports. Evidence also shows that those events need to be followed up by the right grassroots facilities and programmes to support people to harness that inspiration and get active.
Watching elite sports inspires young people to engage in participation. At the same time, broadcasting rights deliver revenues for sporting bodies, which are often invested in activities to promote physical participation. It is therefore important that governing bodies consider access to live sports and maximising much-needed revenue. It is important to get that balance right, and that balance is for each sport’s governing body to determine.
The balance is demonstrated well in cricket, where certain fixtures are behind a paywall, including live television coverage of test and one-day matches. However, some fixtures, including the Hundred competition, radio coverage of test matches, coverage of some T20 fixtures and highlights of test matches are broadcast by free-to-air broadcasters. The ECB has considered the impact of free-to-air and behind-a-paywall broadcasting over the years, and has proceeded with this balanced approach. Approximately 75% of the ECB’s £310 million annual revenue comes from the sale of broadcasting rights.
The ECB is a signatory to “Broadcasting of major sporting events: a voluntary code of conduct for rights owners” in the UK. Signatories of the voluntary code should endeavour to ensure that broadcasting coverage of all major sporting events under their control should generally be available in the UK through free-to-air television in live recorded or highlights broadcasts and that a minimum percentage of broadcasting revenue should be reinvested to support the long-term development of their respective sport. That is why, between January 2024 and January 2025, the ECB invested £77.5 million—37% of total broadcast revenues—into activities to support the recreational game and the development of the game.
The listed events regime is designed to ensure that such events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible by prohibiting exclusive broadcasting of the event without prior consent from Ofcom. However, listing an event in either group A or B does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell live rights for listed events and free-to-air broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them, because all UK broadcasters are operationally and editorially independent of Government.
The list of events works well to strike an appropriate balance between public interest and income generation for sporting bodies and includes a varied cohort of events that have had an enduring popular appeal. The Government have no plans to review the list at this time, but we listen carefully to people’s representations and developments continue to be kept under review.
In closing, the debate has been a brilliant opportunity to discuss the continued success of cricket. I recognise the strong desire to see more cricket on free-to-air television, but I hope I have been able to set out how the Government are supporting that directly as well as the balance we seek between free-to-air audience reach and commercial viability. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) once again for securing the debate.
(1 week, 3 days 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) on securing this important debate on the future of terrestrial television. It is really welcome.
I will start by highlighting the important role that television still plays in our society. It is one of the most powerful and accessible ways to inform, entertain and bring people together across the UK. Whether they are global moments like the world cup and the Olympics, or the King’s speech on Christmas day—or indeed, as has been mentioned, “Gavin and Stacey” on Christmas day—or one of my favourite programmes, “Only Fools and Horses”, mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), these moments bring us together. They create shared cultural experiences. Television has the power to unite across generations, communities and nations.
I will of course address some of the points and questions put to me, but first I shall discuss some of the broad issues, and the action that the Government are currently taking. Public service broadcasters, commercial networks and independent producers all contribute to a rich, dynamic television ecosystem that is a huge source of national pride. Audiences can access world-class content that reflects our diverse society and upholds our democratic values. The system also underpins a thriving creative economy, generating thousands of jobs and driving innovation nationwide. It helps tell the story of the four corners of our United Kingdom, to ourselves and the world.
But the way we watch TV is changing rapidly. Over the past decade, we have seen significant shifts in how content is delivered and consumed. Increasing numbers of viewers are moving to internet-based platforms, both for on demand content and, increasingly, for live programming. That shift is being driven by viewers themselves. Ofcom data shows that over two thirds of UK households now use subscription video on demand services, which is a huge leap from just one in seven in 2014. However we access television in the future, it is clear that TV over the internet is increasingly playing a central role. As such developments gather pace, we must not lose sight of those who still rely on digital terrestrial television as their main way of watching TV. That is especially true for people without access to fast, reliable broadband, as has been discussed in this debate. That is why the DCMS is leading a major project on the future of TV distribution. As technology and viewing habits evolve, that project enables us to take clear evidence-based action with a strong commitment to universal TV access. I will outline the work of the forum in a moment.
Support for public service broadcasters is important as part of a diverse mix alongside commercial broadcasters and streamers. They must be able to innovate and thrive in a changing market. I heard that at first hand when I visited STV in Glasgow last week. I take this opportunity to acknowledge that ITV will turn 70 next week. I congratulate it on that anniversary. As media Minister, I have been pleased to work with and visit our PSBs including, of course, the BBC, S4C, Channel 4 and Channel 5.
Equally, infrastructure providers require certainty to make the long-term investments needed for digital terrestrial and internet TV. I heard that at first hand when I visited the Emley Moor mast with Arqiva a few years ago. It is a Yorkshire landmark just up the road from my Barnsley constituency.
As has been mentioned, DTT is guaranteed until at least 2034. Before making any decisions, we will carefully consider the challenges for public service broadcasters and, importantly, the impact on loyal daily viewers, especially those who rely on digital terrestrial services. Broadcasters want to focus their spending on content that truly reaches audiences. However, as digital terrestrial TV audiences fall, the cost per viewer rises, making it harder for channels, big or small, to sustain distribution.
I would like to directly address the issue put to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale and others of why the Government do not simply commit to extending the licences past 2034. The cost of DTT to the PSBs is substantial. As fewer people rely on DTT, the cost per house is going up and will continue to do so. I am aware from my visits and meetings with providers that as part of the network reaches the end of life, investment would be needed to carry on even the current services. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), a former media Minister, referred to that tipping point. I say that while very clearly saying that no decisions have been made; these are complex issues.
We must ensure that the system remains viable so that audiences can continue to access a diverse and vibrant range of channels. Ofcom’s recent review of public service media made it clear: this is not just about how we watch TV; it is about the future of the UK’s cultural identity, creative economy and democratic life. That is why early strategic planning is essential and why DCMS has made that a priority. Of course, we need to bring that decision together with the BBC charter, ensuring that the BBC continues to provide universal services in a way that is sustainable for the long term.
TV distribution is a complex challenge with no easy answers. We are carefully assessing the costs and trade-offs of different distribution methods to make an informed, sustainable decision, ensuring that key stakeholders and robust evidence are involved in every step of the process. We also recognise that any decision on the future of TV distribution should encourage a competitive TV sector for public sector broadcasters and commercial channels and that the distribution method should, within reason, allow for any channel to be shown. There should not be an industry gatekeeper.
The Media Act 2024, which I and the right hon. Member for Maldon spent many hours in Committee discussing, was a major step forward. It ensures that public service broadcasters get the visibility they deserve on platforms via the internet, making it easier for audiences to find trusted, high-quality content in a crowded digital world.
I acknowledge the concerns about what a shift to internet-based TV might mean for audiences. I heard the issues and concerns that Members raised today. We know that there are groups of people who are more likely to be digitally excluded. They are often older, living in rural areas, more likely to be on lower incomes or living alone, or they may have a disability. Those are the people who rely most on television, not just for news and entertainment, but for connection and companionship.
Around 4.5 million households still face real barriers to accessing TV over the internet, whether due to a lack of broadband, unconnected TVs, or a preference for traditional linear viewing. To understand those challenges, we commissioned researchers who spoke directly with a representative range of viewers across demographic groups, from DTT-only users to hybrid users, who use both DTT and IPTV, and full internet TV adopters. Building on the University of Exeter’s research, this in-depth work shows that many are interested in IPTV once they understand it better, but concerns remain about cost, internet reliability and technical confidence, even among those with broadband. We are using those insights to understand how different groups are affected and to explore what the Government and industry can do to support fair and inclusive access to television.
Digital inclusion remains a top priority for the Government. It is essential for unlocking long-term economic growth and is being led by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The DSIT-led Project Gigabit, the Government’s programme to enable hard-to-reach communities to access lightning-fast gigabit-capable broadband, is key to ensuring fair and inclusive access for all.
I want to answer some of the other points. Ofcom noted the importance of any decision, but it has not made a recommendation. It is part of our TV forum. DCMS is doing a full assessment of the costs of all the options, informed by our work with the stakeholder forum. We will publish that assessment when a decision is made.
Experts are at the centre of our work on the future of TV distribution. Our stakeholder forum brings together Ofcom, industry and audience representatives in a co-ordinated effort to explore the future of television delivery. It provides the space to identify challenges, discuss potential solutions and make real progress in shaping policy.
Running for at least 12 months, the forum meets quarterly, having already held four sessions with a final meeting planned for November. To support it, we have established three working groups, each focusing on a core part of the landscape: the TV sector, the infrastructure that underpins it, and the audience perspective. Together, these groups ensure that we are looking at the full picture—technical, commercial and, most importantly, viewers.
Membership spans the entire TV distribution ecosystem, from major broadcasters and infrastructure providers to trade bodies, advocacy groups and sector experts from across the UK. It includes organisations that represent people most likely to be unconnected or digitally excluded, such as the Digital Poverty Alliance, the Rural Services Network, Good Things Foundation and Silver Voices. This approach is producing a rich evidence base.
The forum plays a vital role in helping DCMS to test assumptions, understand practical implementation challenges and assess the technical feasibility of different approaches. It is not expected to reach a single view, but it will help to build consensus around the viable options and the evidence behind them before the Government make any decision. I am committed to transparency in this area: we will publish papers from this forum, set out clearly the evidence we have collected, and consult further ahead of any decision. Before any possible change, Parliament would be fully engaged and involved in any legislative process.
Let me close by reaffirming the Government’s strong commitment to a future for TV that is sustainable, innovative and inclusive; a future that supports our creative economy, protects access for every viewer, and encourages our broadcasters and platforms to keep creating world-class content for audiences here and around the world.
We also know this is not an easy decision. The choices ahead are complex and must be guided by evidence, and that is why we are taking the time to get them right, drawing on data, research and the views of people across the sector and across the country. We know this work cannot happen in isolation; it is a joint effort that requires extensive collaboration across Government, industry and audience groups—one that balances expertise and lived experience, that listens as much as it leads, and that keeps our clear commitment that no one gets left behind. As we look to the future, we must ensure that our television sector remains a cornerstone of British life: accessible to everyone, rich in diversity and confident in its place on the global stage.
We are about to vote, so I would like to put the question as soon as we can, but it is up to the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell).
(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberI am really pleased to be responding to this debate, and I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing it. This has been a well attended Adjournment debate, and I put on record my thanks to Members for their attendance and the interventions. We have had interventions from across the House, including from the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) and for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan). That shows the real interest in this incredibly important topic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch made a powerful speech outlining why this is such an important issue and debate. This Government have set out a bold and ambitious agenda for change, and sport and physical activity have an important role to play in it, as my hon. Friend outlined. I will discuss that before addressing specific issues that he raised. Not only does physical activity play a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation by helping to treat and manage a wide range of health conditions, but community sport can play a major role in building confidence and teamwork, supporting life skills for future generations and improving community cohesion.
Despite those benefits, over a fifth of adults—almost 12 million—are inactive, and over a third of children do less than 30 minutes of activity a day. The data shows us that this varies by geography, ethnicity and socioeconomic background. I have seen that at first hand in my constituency; people in Stairfoot live seven years fewer than people on the other side of Barnsley. That is just one example; too often, that is replicated across the country.
Put simply, too many people are inactive, and the number is disproportionately higher among certain demographics, including people with long-term health conditions, such as diabetes. Our ambition is that everyone, no matter their background, should be able to take part in sport. Being physically active is particularly important in helping to reduce the risk of chronic diseases in adults and manage long-term health conditions. Evidence shows that physical activity directly prevents 3.2 million cases of long-term health conditions per year, including 600,000 cases of diabetes, equating to over £10 billion of healthcare savings each year.
Moving more can substantially reduce the risk of diabetes. For example, moving more can reduce the adult population’s relative risk of type 2 diabetes by 40%. For people living with either type 1 or type 2 diabetes, being active helps manage the condition; in particular, it reduces the likelihood of serious complications, such as stroke and heart disease. In fact, moving more can, over time, help people with type 2 diabetes manage their blood glucose levels. Of course, being physically active is incredibly good for mental health as well as physical health.
My hon. Friend knows all this, which is why he brought forward the debate. The challenge for all of us is how we ensure that those with long-term health conditions, such as diabetes, can benefit from physical activity. While every person’s experience is unique, common barriers for people with diabetes include pain, fatigue and sometimes the necessity of regular injections. I was particularly concerned to hear that people with diabetes have also reported that stigma has held them back from doing more physical activity.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for bringing forward the debate, and for so brilliantly setting out the challenges, but also the opportunity to give people with diabetes far more benefits from sport. One of the brilliant innovations in mental healthcare in recent years has been social prescribing in general practice. So much of that revolves around encouraging people to be physically active and to socialise. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely vital that we ensure that when we signpost people to support, it is available to people with diabetes, so that they can reap the benefits, rather than feeling the stigma of rejection from spaces, which she and my hon. Friend mentioned?
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, and I will come on to discuss that shortly.
We all share a responsibility to enable, support and include people who are managing health conditions such as diabetes, including in sporting environments. Increasing physical activity and reducing inactivity is part of the Government’s health agenda to shift from treatment to prevention. Our 10-year health plan published in July 2025 commits to taking a place-based approach to physical activity. We will invest £250 million in 100 places through Sport England, invest £400 million in local community sport facilities, and develop new school sport partnerships to support schools and families in establishing healthy physical activity behaviours early on. Sport England’s place-based partnerships show that where investment in physical activity is designed with local people, physical inactivity rates were nearly 4 percentage points lower.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes, and over the summer, we visited the Northern general hospital in Sheffield. We met healthcare professionals who spoke about their one-stop shop for people with diabetes. They want to deliver services in communities, and in places with grassroots community sports. Does she agree that this might be a perfect opportunity that ties into what she describes?
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I would love to hear more about that example in Sheffield, just down the road from my constituency. He brings me neatly on to the example that I was going to share. I recently saw some of this work in action when I visited Essex. There, local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit services together. They are building strong links between the health and leisure sectors, including by co-locating services, so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. That means, for example, that people with long-term health conditions can access activities that not only improve their physical health, but are fun and social and, in some cases, contribute to getting them back into work.
Of course, excellent examples of the work being done are local NHS and social prescribing services, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said. They can direct individuals with long-term conditions to various local physical activity opportunities, such as public leisure facilities, walking groups and nature-based exercise as part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funding for green social prescribing. Parkrun is linked with over 2,000 GP practices, and offers a free option for all abilities.
Sport England funds and provides guidance and education for their system partners. It funds “Moving Medicine”, a Faculty of Sport and Exercise Medicine initiative that provides resources to support healthcare professionals in integrating physical activity conversations into routine clinical care. That includes specific guidance on type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Sport England’s Buddle programme provides free learning and support resources to inspire and strengthen clubs and organisations offering sport and physical activity, as well the professionals who work with them. Buddle shares the latest information, training and tools, to help clubs and organisations overcome challenges and make the most of the opportunities available to them. That includes sharing case studies and signposting further guidance to enable those with long-term health conditions to exercise safely and effectively.
The national “We Are Undefeatable” campaign, funded by Sport England, inspires and supports people to be active by showing people living with a variety of conditions—both visible and invisible—on their journeys to being active. The campaign aims to address the stigma around exercising with disabilities and long-term health conditions, to reduce exclusion from physical activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch gave incredibly powerful and moving examples of the impact that stigma can have, showing clearly that there is more to do to ensure that the sport sector provides the support needed for those with diabetes. We expect all national governing bodies to have plans in place to support those with long-term health conditions, and to make the most of the training and support on offer from the professional development body for sport and physical activity and from the NHS. Although the research that my hon. Friend referred to indicates a lack of clear, explicit policies on chronic conditions, such as diabetes, in many NGBs, the legal requirement not to discriminate and to make reasonable adjustments remains in force.
The research clearly shows that some areas of inclusion have more developed policies than others, as is the case with diabetes. That disparity suggests the need for a more co-ordinated and robust approach to supporting individuals with chronic health conditions in sport. We will therefore continue to look for further answers, including through Sport England conducting research with Diabetes UK on the barriers to and opportunities for physical activity. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and the organisations that he mentioned.
Ultimately, this is about every part of the system—from the NHS to national governing bodies, and from leaders to local partners—playing their part in making sport and physical activity easier to access and manage alongside diabetes.
I thank the Minister for being very generous with her time. One key point is that when it comes to exercise and sport, our most formative experiences are at school. When my sister was at high school, diabetes carried a massive stigma, and she was told that she would have to inject her insulin in a toilet, which was completely inappropriate. Does the Minister agree that we must ensure that people with diabetes have positive experiences, starting as early as school?
I absolutely agree. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work with the all-party parliamentary group.
In summary, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and Members across the House for their contribution to this debate. As much as anything else, public awareness is key to this agenda. I hope that my hon. Friend can take from my response that the Government are committed to getting more people active, no matter their background. I am hugely passionate about this agenda, as I know that being physically active and playing sport is genuinely life-changing, and, if anything, can be even more important for those with long-term health conditions. I will happily continue to work with him on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsThe Government are deeply committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sport across the UK. High-quality, inclusive facilities provide opportunities for connection and cohesion, as well as supporting people of all ages and backgrounds to participate in sport and physical activity wherever they live, helping to drive forward this Government’s plan for change.
As part of this ongoing commitment, on 25 August, the Government announced £1.5 million investment into two indoor cricket domes in Luton and Farington in Lancashire.
Luton and Preston are currently poorly served by cricket facilities. The aim is to increase opportunities for access to cricket and wider sport opportunities for underserved communities, in line with our broader strategic objectives for grassroots facilities investment. The cricket domes will offer significant benefit to under-represented groups, and increase the overall number of opportunities for physical activity by providing a covered outdoor environment which enables all-weather, all-year-round training and match play.
As we look forward to future sporting events in the UK, including next year’s women’s T20 cricket world cup, we will continue to prioritise grassroots clubs and facilities, getting more people involved in sport and physical activity.
This £1.5 million investment is in addition to the £400 million for grassroots facilities which the Government announced in June. The longer-term investment will prioritise underserved places, and through working closely with sporting bodies—including the England and Wales Cricket Board, devolved Government, and local leaders —the Government will establish what each community needs and then set out further plans in due course.
[HCWS890]
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsAs the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out in her written statement on 15 May:
“This Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape, where citizens are able to access information from a range of sources in order to form opinions”—[Official Report, 15 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 16WS.]—
while ensuring that foreign states are not able to own, control or influence the policy of UK newspapers or news periodicals. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 will permit foreign state-owned investors to hold up to 15% of shares and voting rights in a UK newspaper enterprise, as long as they are passive investors with no rights or ability to appoint directors or other company officers or to exercise direct or indirect influence over the newspaper’s policies. The changes balance the need to protect our press from foreign state influence with the need to allow newspaper groups the flexibility to attract inward investment from a broad range of sources that do not present a risk to their editorial and operational independence.
We have noted the concerns raised across Parliament that the regulations do not fully deal with the risk of multiple state-owned investors acting on behalf of different states, each being able to hold up to 15%. Although remote, this scenario is not entirely theoretical. Concern was also raised regarding the Government’s ability to review all relevant cases.
On 18 June, I gave a commitment in Parliament to address these concerns, so today we have published for consultation a further set of draft regulations to amend the Enterprise Act 2002. The consultation will launch today and will be open for eight weeks until 18 September. Following this consultation, the Government will lay, in draft, a second statutory instrument to make the necessary changes to the legislation later in the autumn.
[HCWS828]
(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsOn 15 August 2025, the United Kingdom will mark the 80th anniversary of victory over Japan, the date that brought the final end to the second world war.
While VE Day 1945 marked the end of the war in Europe, thousands of British and Commonwealth troops continued to battle against Japanese forces in Asia and the Pacific. Three months later, victory over Japan was declared on 15 August, following imperial Japan’s surrender to allied forces. The dropping of two atomic bombs on Japanese cities—one in Hiroshima on 6 August and the other three days later on Nagasaki—resulted in enormous devastation, bringing the six-year global conflict to a rapid end and introduced the ever-present threat of nuclear war.
The human cost of the second world war was overwhelming, leading to death and destruction for millions of people on both sides. British and Commonwealth forces suffered heavy casualties, disease and extreme conditions. The campaign in the far east saw thousands of allied troops taken prisoner of war and forced into hard labour. The end of the war brought mixed emotions, widespread sadness, relief and renewed hope that families and soldiers long separated would soon be reunited. It would take months and much effort to bring British service personnel back home, some of whom had spent five years overseas.
Today, our world once again appears increasingly fragmented and uncertain. As we mark what may be the final anniversary with living veterans, we must take this moment to thank them and pay tribute to their service. As their living history fades, it becomes ever more important to share their stories and preserve the lessons they leave behind, so that future generations can understand the true cost of total war and the enduring value of peace.
This anniversary offers the nation an opportunity to come together and reflect on the extraordinary sacrifices made by those who served in the far east, and to pay tribute to all who contributed to the allied victory. We saw how the UK came together for VE Day, echoing the celebrations 80 years ago, with community celebrations and street parties in a nationwide act of celebration and friendship. On 15 August, we will once again come together to commemorate the second world war generation, and listen to stories directly from those who lived through the conflict and hear first hand about their experiences.
The national commemorations will commence with a Government reception to celebrate VJ Day with veterans. Government buildings and high commissions across the globe will also be lit up on 15 August to commemorate VJ Day.
On Friday 15 August, the VJ Day 80 service of remembrance will take place in partnership with the Royal British Legion and include a national two-minute silence at midday. The event will be attended by second world war veterans of the far east campaign, VJ association members, senior politicians, and military personnel. It will pay tribute to the British, Commonwealth and allied veterans who served in the far east theatres of war, the Pacific and Indian Ocean territories. The national commemoration will feature a Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force guard of honour and music provided by military bands. The event will host a spectacular tribute to veterans involving 400 members of the armed forces, the Red Arrows and historic aircraft from the battle of Britain memorial flight, featuring the historic Dakota, Hurricane and Spitfire aircrafts.
Veterans will be at the heart of the service and include Burma Star recipients, British Indian Army veterans and those involved in the battles of Kohima and Imphal, as well as prisoners of war held across the region and veterans stationed in the UK or Commonwealth countries, who contributed to the war effort. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in a national two-minute silence at midday on Friday 15 August.
The Government are working with partners across the UK, including the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to ensure commemorations are UK-wide. The Government national engagement programme runs throughout the year, forming a golden thread of remembrance that connects VE to VJ Day. In partnership with imperial war museums, a range of activities will support this effort, including the ongoing letters to loved ones project, which invites the public to explore their family history and share letters and testimonies from those who served in the far east. IWM will also deliver a paper crane-making initiative at IWM London, a screening of Es Devlin’s “I saw the world end” in Piccadilly Circus, and large-scale public screenings of a new contemporary VJ Day film, with an immersive augmented reality experience at IWM North, offering deeper reflection through personal stories, sound, and archive film.
Internationally, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s “for evermore” tour will expand to new sites including Nairobi war cemetery in Kenya, Sai Wan in Hong Kong, Kranji in Singapore, and Kanchanaburi in Thailand, honouring the global contribution and sacrifice of those who served.
We owe this to the second world war generation who, 80 years ago, fought for our freedom and paid the ultimate sacrifice. It is a chance to reaffirm our national commitment to peace and to ensure that the lessons and legacies of the second world war are never forgotten.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s interactive website, https://ve-vjday80.gov.uk , offers key information and resources, including ways to get involved in the commemorations.
[HCWS821]
(2 months ago)
General CommitteesI beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025.
With this it will be convenient to consider the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I., 2025, No. 737).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. Thank you for your guidance.
I am pleased to be speaking to these orders, the first of which was laid before the House in draft on 26 June and the second of which was made on 26 June and is subject to the made affirmative procedure. The Government are clear in our commitment to a free and pluralistic media whereby all citizens in all parts of the UK can access high-quality news and other information from a range of sources, enabling them to form their own opinions. The public’s continued access to diverse news, views and information is fundamental to the health of our democracy as well as our nation. That is why the Enterprise Act 2002 contains powers that allow the Secretary of State to intervene in media mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to public interest concerns —about, for example, the accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion—and to take appropriate action to remedy any such concerns that arise.
Owing to the more limited nature of the news market in 2002, when the Enterprise Act became law, only print newspapers published on a daily, Sunday or local basis and broadcasters are in scope of the core media mergers regime. The media landscape has undergone significant changes in the intervening decades, and our laws need to keep pace with technology and evolving news consumption habits. The shift to digital news was clearly evidenced in the Ofcom report “News consumption in the UK: 2024”, which showed that 71% of UK adults now consume news via online sources. We need to reflect the fact that news is increasingly accessed and consumed online. That is why we are here today; these orders are designed to address that very issue.
In its 2021 statutory review of the operation of media ownership rules, Ofcom recommended that the Secretary of State broaden the scope of the public interest considerations beyond print newspapers and broadcasters to capture a broader range of news creators. Ofcom set out its belief that that would better reflect the way in which people access news now. Between 6 November 2024 and 13 January 2025, my Department ran a technical consultation on proposals derived from Ofcom’s recommendations: to expand the scope of the media mergers regime from print newspapers and broadcasters to encompass online newspapers and periodical news magazines, and to extend the application of key media public interest considerations to this new definition of newspapers, and broadcasters carrying news programmes.
Those public interest considerations are: the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers; the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers; and the need for sufficient plurality of persons with control of media enterprises. At the same time, the Government proposed to extend the scope of the new foreign state influence regime to online news publications.
Having taken into account the views of industry, Parliament and the public, we are confident that our changes balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment. Two related orders—the ones that we are discussing today—are required to enact the policy changes.
First, the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025 will amend the definition of “newspaper” in the Enterprise Act 2002 so that it encompasses print and online newspapers and print and online periodical news magazines. Provision has been made to ensure that the scope of the regime extends only to publications that are connected with the UK.
In effect, the amendments will expand and align the scope of the media merger standard and special public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime. All three regimes will now apply to acquisitions of print newspapers, news magazines and online newspapers. That will create a consistent and forward-looking public interest regime. Importantly, the draft order will enable the Secretary of State to intervene on public interest grounds—subject to jurisdiction—in the acquisition of an online-only newspaper. Until now, she has not had the power to do so.
The second order, the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025, will extend the application of public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to “news media”—a new term defined as newspapers or broadcasters of news programmes. Those public interest considerations include the need for accurate presentation of news and free expression of opinion in newspapers, and the need for sufficient plurality of views in each UK market for newspapers. Whereas the public interest considerations I have just mentioned can already be considered in the context of newspaper mergers, the changes made by the section 58 order will mean that the Secretary of State will now be able on any of the aforementioned public interest grounds to intervene in mergers involving the broadcasters of news programmes.
The order will also extend the public interest consideration on the need for sufficient plurality of control of the media in relation to every different UK audience. That public interest consideration currently applies to mergers involving broadcasters, but the Secretary of State will now also be able to consider its relevance to mergers involving print and online newspaper and news magazine enterprises. We recognise the challenging financial context for newspapers, and the importance of the balance between encouraging investment in the sector and being able to protect against market consolidation that might be detrimental to our plural and thriving news market. It is important to note in relation to the changes made by the section 58 order that the Secretary of State’s powers under the public interest regime continue to be discretionary. There is a range of possible outcomes to any investigation that she may commence, and in assessing an individual case, the Secretary of State would need to consider the facts of the case and the evidence at hand.
Returning to the orders, the foreign state influence regime introduced in May 2024 already prohibits foreign states from acquiring control or influence over the policy of print newspaper and periodical news magazine enterprises. The regime will be extended by the definition of newspaper order such that foreign powers will now also be banned from acquiring control or influence over the policy of an online newspaper or news magazine enterprise. The benefit of extending the scope of the prohibition in this way is to protect plurality of views and to prevent potential editorial interference or censorship from foreign states in online-only newspapers, which form a large part of the UK’s news consumption. That expansion will also ensure alignment across the media merger regime for both print and digital news publications, creating a consistent, forward-looking regime.
The amendments to the definition of newspaper for the foreign state influence regime will apply with retrospective effect from the day that this change was announced: 15 May 2025. The Secretary of State will be required to intervene in any completed or anticipated mergers involving an online newspaper enterprise that completed or were in progress on or after 15 May. If she has reasonable grounds to suspect a foreign power is or will be able to control or influence the policy of the online newspaper enterprise as a result, all other changes will apply prospectively.
Both the definition of newspaper order and the amendment of section 58 considerations order will make the public interest regimes and the foreign state influence regime reflect the various ways people access and consume news today. With those changes, we are modernising protections for our world-class UK news market, by enabling or requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in a broader range of news mergers that may operate against the public interest. The orders balance the need to protect the public interest in a digital age with our responsibility to support a competitive, sustainable and plural media environment.
It has been an important debate, and I am grateful for the contributions—in particular, that of the official Opposition. It is a delight to see the shadow Minister in his place; I am used to calling him Minister, as I used to sit in where he is now. I appreciate his contribution, his questions and his support, as I do the always cordial approach from the Liberal Democrats.
The debate shows the wide support for protecting a thriving and plural news market that acts as the cornerstone of democracy, especially in this digital age. The debate also highlights the challenges of striking the right balance between encouraging a range of investment in the sector and safeguarding the public’s ability to access high quality news that they can trust. That balance is especially fine in the light of the continuing evolution of the digital and online space.
In answer to the point around investment, the Government have decided to take a proportionate approach that reflects the most important changes to the way in which the public consume news in the present day. The approach will balance not stifling or chilling investment and protecting the public. The Government are committed to supporting a financially sustainable press sector, recognising the financial challenges that many have faced over recent years. We acknowledge the role that consolidation can play; we are developing our local media strategy in recognition of the importance of this, and are working cross-Government with other stakeholders as the strategy develops. We agree that encouraging a range of investment in the sector is important, and the Government are committed to maintaining a thriving and pluralistic media landscape, but that obviously has to have a balance.
Moving on to the questions about the foreign state ownership regime, we of course debated that last month and it was passed by a vote of the House earlier this month. I committed to updating the House by the middle of this week, and I shall. Obviously, this issue emerged under the previous Government; it was very clear that we do not want foreign states having influence. The 15% cap balances the need to protect the sector from state influence with the reality that newspapers need to access new investment. Of course, if there is any hint that that is anything other than a passive investment, the Secretary of State is obliged to act. We have debated that. I will introduce a further SI and update the House later this week.
Question put.
(2 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing this important debate. She outlined the huge contribution that Onna Ju-Jitsu has made to her area. I join her in thanking that organisation for the contribution that it has made to Bradford and the young people that it works with. I want to say from the outset how awful, concerning and unacceptable the experience is that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House today. I will encourage Sport England to learn and develop processes as a result, and I will go into more detail in the very short time that I have. I am happy to meet her if I cannot cover it all in the time I have left.
Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror to our society, reflecting its strengths and at times its challenges. It is one of the most pressing challenges—racism—that we are discussing today. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society and no place in sport and activity. We are committed to stamping it out, from the elite level to the grassroots, ensuring that sport is truly for everyone, regardless of their background or ethnicity.
My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to Sport England and its handling of a specific case relating to the British Ju-Jitsu Association. Given the issues raised, I have met Sport England to talk about the specifics of the case and how it addressed it. I want to start by saying that I recognise and appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent. National governing bodies are central to our sporting system, and are responsible for the management, administration and regulation of their sports. As such, they should rightly be held to high standards. In this case, it is clear that the British Ju-Jitsu Association fell short of those standards.
My hon. Friend spoke about how there has been an extensive process over a number of years, which initially led to beginning the process of derecognition of the governing body. As part of that process, and in line with the criteria, the British Ju-Jitsu Association was given a deadline to submit relevant evidence and information showing that it was capable of meeting set policy criteria in order to maintain its NGB status. Following a review in May 2024, the home country sports councils agreed to the continued recognition of the British Ju-Jitsu Association providing it complied with agreed conditions.
It is worth pausing on those conditions, as they remain extremely relevant. First, the governing body needed to publish a commitment to cultural change. Secondly, it needed to establish an equality, diversity and inclusion working group, and monitor processes. Thirdly, it needed to move to being a more inclusive organisation through a plan agreed with Sport England.
I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that the change has not been comprehensive. The approach taken by Sport England has given the best chance of delivering long-term change by trying to keep the British Ju-Jitsu Association within its scope rather than cutting it adrift. However, I strongly believe that culture change means action as well as words, so I will be paying close attention to how the British Ju-Jitsu Association rebuilds the confidence of those who take part in the sport, which it has clearly lost.
I will say at this stage that those conditions must be ongoing. It is clear that there remain concerns about the culture at the British Ju-Jitsu Association. I know that Sport England takes its role very seriously in supporting an inclusive environment where participants have confidence in the leadership of sport, so I will continue to engage with it to make sure that scrutiny is maintained, and that action is taken when the British Ju-Jitsu Association does not meet the standards required.
I also want to address the wider situation of sport governance within this context. As a Government, we want to see as many sports clubs and organisations affiliated with their recognised governing bodies as possible. For participants, that is vital information to be aware of. The recognition process ensures that the home country sports councils, including Sport England, have the ability to change behaviour and drive progress. It also allows clubs and other affiliated organisations to apply for public funding. I refer hon. Members to the Adjournment debate last night on safeguarding in combat sports, which shows precisely why we need to use recognition to improve sport and sport safety.
In the case that my hon. Friend has raised, it is entirely right that Sport England continues to use all available levers to drive culture change within the British Ju-Jitsu Association, while maintaining its ability to take all possible actions, including derecognition should that change not be taken forward. In her speech, my hon. Friend raised concerns with how Sport England has handled the case. I recognise that it is always difficult to reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties in such cases, but I have been assured by Sport England that it takes the allegations seriously. I also recognise that, when it comes to assessing individual cases, its powers are limited.
As a result of this case, Sport England is in the process of reviewing the current recognition policy. At the moment, the criteria are very factual and based on whether a governing body has the right policies in place. That does not allow the sports councils to take into account wider factors that are clearly relevant to the confidence that individuals have in the leadership of their sport. The current review will look at those wider issues, including whether the sport has been brought into disrepute. That will allow sports councils to take a broader look at whether it is appropriate for governing bodies to continue to be recognised. A review of that nature, and the ability to consider the leadership and culture of a governing body, is something that I wholeheartedly support and strongly encourage.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I know that she has been speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. As Sport England is a public body, it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take an independent view on what needs to happen, but I am sure that those at Sport England will have heard the issues in this debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituent can take from this debate just how important this issue is to me and the Government. I will be keeping a close eye on developments in British jiu-jitsu, but I am also taking steps to ensure that everyone who participates in sport feels included and welcome. It is a sad fact that racism continues to plague our society, and we must do more to tackle it.
Sport England is at the heart of our sporting system. It is therefore essential that it sets an example and creates the right culture in sport. I have heard at first hand Sport England’s commitment to do so, but given this debate, I will continue to discuss it with the organisation and ensure that it remains a central priority, as there is clearly more to do.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for his moving speech. The death of his constituent, Alexander Eastwood, as a result of a kickboxing bout is devastating. I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about child safeguarding and I can reassure him and the House that it is a priority for this Government. He advocates with care and thought for his constituents, making a powerful and moving speech—one that I have heard very clearly. In the time available to me, I will set out the Government’s plans to strengthen safeguarding for children in combat sports. I will begin by outlining key safeguarding issues in those sports; then I will set out the Government’s next steps in addressing this incredibly important issue.
First, I recognise that this is a debate that everyone would have hoped we would not have to have. The tragic death of Alexander Eastwood is something we hoped would never have happened. I am sure I speak for the whole House in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, who are here this evening. As my hon. Friend has said, they have shown incredible courage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Alexander’s family next week, and we are both committed to making sure that meaningful change happens so that no other family has to go through the pain that they have felt.
It is a priority of my Department that the safety and wellbeing of children taking part in sport are paramount. Alexander’s death is such a tragedy, and it has made it very clear that more needs to be done to protect the safety of children in combat sports. Ahead of the inquest into the death of Alexander Eastwood, the assistant coroner for Manchester West filed a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. The report highlighted specific areas of concern for children in martial arts. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out plans to work with the martial arts sector to address those concerns.
In considering our next steps, we must take account of the entire martial arts sector and its complexity. The sector is made up of many different disciplines, including judo, taekwondo, kickboxing and more. Many, though not all, of these disciplines have publicly funded national governing bodies. Many providers across the sector have robust safety measures in place. National governing bodies set minimum safeguarding standards for their affiliated clubs and competitions to comply with. These standards are in line with guidance issued by Sport England, our arm’s length body for grassroots sport.
Many clubs and competitions are not affiliated with a publicly funded governing body. However, many unaffiliated providers choose to sign up to the safeguarding code in martial arts. Organisations such as the British Martial Arts and Boxing Association support unaffiliated martial arts providers to adopt the safeguarding code. The code is funded by Sport England, and recognises clubs and associations that demonstrate strong safeguarding practices against a set of minimum standards. Providers with recognition under the code can display a logo on their promotional materials to show participants that their safety measures have been vetted.
The coroner’s report on the case of Alexander Eastwood highlighted specific issues around clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with a national governing body. We are now looking into that as a matter of urgency. The coroner identified that without set standards, clubs and competitions may not have adequate regulations around medical checks and support, the number of rounds and periods of rest, participant welfare checks and critical incident plans. Despite the programmes in place to support robust safeguarding practices in martial arts, unaffiliated providers are not required to meet any shared safety standards. I recognise that coaches and providers work hard to make martial arts available to communities across the country, and I recognise the work done by clubs and associations to comply with the safeguarding code in martial arts, but there must be strong, consistent standards for safeguarding children across all martial arts. Clearly, more must be done.
Clubs and competitions across martial arts should share consistent standards for safeguarding children. Parents and carers should be able to trust that appropriate safety measures are in place, regardless of where their children participate. Existing safety standards for martial arts set by Sport England and its partners must be robust and fit for purpose, but national standards must also translate into strong safety practices across all martial arts. The sector should look to encourage as many clubs as possible to adopt shared safety standards. The Government will consider what more can be done in this space.
Parents and carers deserve to be able to make informed decisions about where their children participate in martial arts. Information on best safety practices and which clubs and competitions meet shared standards should be readily available to participants and their guardians. Of course, the burden of finding information should not only lie with participants and their guardians; clubs and competitions with robust safety practices should be supported to promote the standards they meet. The Government are looking at all these areas to assess what more can be done to safeguard children in combat sports. As promised in her response to the coroner’s report, the Secretary of State will meet the family of Alexander Eastwood to hear about their experiences and views, and to discuss our thinking before we go into more detail publicly. I hope everyone can appreciate why that approach is being taken.
In addition, in response to the coroner’s report on this case, my Department has tasked Sport England with working with the martial arts sector on this issue. It will identify improvements and present a plan in the coming months. That work will include developing guidance for the martial arts sector and reviewing the safeguarding code for martial arts to ensure that it reflects best practice and is fit for purpose. Sport England will also work with the NSPCC to help educate parents and carers on what to look for in choosing where to participate in martial arts. That will involve the NSPCC’s Keeping Your Child Safe in Sport Week—a week of educational programming in October.
My Department is also exploring ways to strengthen safety standards in clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with national governing bodies. We are having conversations with the martial arts sector to understand how we can help parents and carers to be confident that their children will be safe when they participate. Our aim will be to ensure that safeguarding practices in martial arts are consistent, effective and transparent.
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has been up to see the family in the Gallery this evening and who will meet them next week. I know the family and the solicitors, Leigh Day, will be incredibly grateful for the thorough response the Minister has given tonight, putting a lot of information on the record. These sports and activities for young people are so important for our communities, and we do not want to put any young person off taking up a sport, competing or becoming a professional in that sport. This is about safety; it is about giving parents the safety and security they need, and about something good coming from Alex Eastwood’s death.
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, his moving contribution and for putting that important point on the record. As he said, sport should be a safe and welcoming environment that participants, parents and carers can have confidence in. Many martial arts providers work hard to safeguard children who participate under their supervision, and there are strong safety practices in place across many areas of combat sport, but more must be done to ensure that safety standards are strong, consistent and transparent. Standards of practice should be robust and widely adopted across the sector, and it should be clear to parents and carers which clubs and competitions comply with shared standards and which do not.
Nothing can bring Alexander back, but as the Secretary of State said to me before the debate, we are determined to work with his family to make sure that part of his legacy is real change, so that a tragedy like this never happens again.
Question put and agreed to.